Barefield v. HSBC Holdings PLC, 1:18-cv-00527-LJO-JLT. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190507727
Visitors: 6
Filed: May 03, 2019
Latest Update: May 03, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CONSOLIDATION OF CASES (ECF No. 79) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Not only has Plaintiff not provided any basis for reconsideration, see Local Rule 230(j)(3), but her legal arguments are incorrect as a matter of law. First, her unlawful detainer action was not removed properly. The Local Rules of this District clearly requ
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CONSOLIDATION OF CASES (ECF No. 79) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Not only has Plaintiff not provided any basis for reconsideration, see Local Rule 230(j)(3), but her legal arguments are incorrect as a matter of law. First, her unlawful detainer action was not removed properly. The Local Rules of this District clearly requi..
More
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CONSOLIDATION OF CASES
(ECF No. 79)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.
The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Not only has Plaintiff not provided any basis for reconsideration, see Local Rule 230(j)(3), but her legal arguments are incorrect as a matter of law. First, her unlawful detainer action was not removed properly. The Local Rules of this District clearly require removed cases to be "initiated pursuant to the CM/ECF procedures in the same fashion as any other civil action." See Local Rule 101, Definition of "Removed Case." That did not happen here. Second, as the Court explained, even if removal had been effectuated in a procedurally proper manner, this Court would not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff's removed unlawful detainer action anyway. This Court cannot entertain her unlawful detainer action here and therefore cannot consolidate it with her pending action before the undersigned. The motion for reconsideration is DENIED. No further motions on this subject will be entertained.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
