Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

REDDY v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 5:11-cv-05632-PSG. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20151222a73 Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2015
Summary: OMNIBUS ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR FEES, SANCTIONS, AND LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Re: Docket No. 275, 280, 302) PAUL S. GREWAL , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Krishna Reddy and Defendants Nuance Communications, Inc. et al. present assorted motions, 1 all of which are DENIED. I. On September 4, 2015, the court entered judgment. 2 At that time, the court invited Defendants to submit a motion for fees and costs incurred since the final pretrial conference. 3 Under Civ. L.R. 54-1(a
More

OMNIBUS ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR FEES, SANCTIONS, AND LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Re: Docket No. 275, 280, 302)

Plaintiff Krishna Reddy and Defendants Nuance Communications, Inc. et al. present assorted motions,1 all of which are DENIED.

I.

On September 4, 2015, the court entered judgment.2 At that time, the court invited Defendants to submit a motion for fees and costs incurred since the final pretrial conference.3 Under Civ. L.R. 54-1(a) and 54-5(a), the deadline to file a bill of costs or a motion for fees is 14 days from the entry of judgment, or in this case, by September 18, 2015.4 Defendants untimely moved for fees and costs on October 15, 2015,5 well after the deadline. Their motion for fees is DENIED.

II.

After Defendants moved for fees, Reddy moved for sanctions, entry of default judgment and disbarment of Defendants' attorneys.6 The basis for her request is that Defendants' motion fell outside the 14 days allotted by Civ. L.R. 54-5(a).7 Reddy argues that the requested sanctions are proper under Civ. L.R. 1-4, which provides that "[f]ailure by counsel or a party to comply with any duly promulgated local rule or any Federal Rule may be a ground for imposition of any authorized sanction."8 Defendants' motion was untimely and has been denied for that reason; the extreme penalties that Reddy requests are unwarranted. Her motion is DENIED.

III.

Finally, Reddy again requests leave to appeal in forma pauperis.9 The court denied her last request10 on the ground that her appeal was frivolous.11 The Ninth Circuit then denied her motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because it found that Reddy had not demonstrated indigence and because her appeal was frivolous.12 Reddy now has filed an in forma pauperis application with information on her finances,13 but she has provided no basis for reconsidering the court's prior assessment of her appeal as frivolous. This motion is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. See Docket Nos. 275, 280, 302.
2. See Docket Nos. 269.
3. See Docket No. 268 at 6.
4. See Civ. L.R. 54-1(a), 54-5(a).
5. See Docket No. 275.
6. See Docket No. 280.
7. See id. at 6.
8. See id. at 3, 6.
9. See Docket No. 302.
10. See Docket No. 271.
11. See Docket No. 276 at 4.
12. See Docket No. 301 at 1.
13. See Docket No. 302.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer