Hadsell v. Baskin, 4:18-cv-00293-KAW. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180803815
Visitors: 11
Filed: Aug. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 02, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO VACATE 7/3/18 ORDERS Re: Dkt. Nos. 93, 94 KANDIS A. WESTMORE , Magistrate Judge . On July 31, 2018, Plaintiff Christopher Hadsell filed motions to vacate the July 3, 2018 order granting the motion to dismiss without leave to amend (Dkt. No. 93) and the order denying the motion to award service expenses (Dkt. No. 94), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), on the grounds that the undersigned "committed clear errors resulting in a decision that
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO VACATE 7/3/18 ORDERS Re: Dkt. Nos. 93, 94 KANDIS A. WESTMORE , Magistrate Judge . On July 31, 2018, Plaintiff Christopher Hadsell filed motions to vacate the July 3, 2018 order granting the motion to dismiss without leave to amend (Dkt. No. 93) and the order denying the motion to award service expenses (Dkt. No. 94), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), on the grounds that the undersigned "committed clear errors resulting in a decision that ..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO VACATE 7/3/18 ORDERS Re: Dkt. Nos. 93, 94
KANDIS A. WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge.
On July 31, 2018, Plaintiff Christopher Hadsell filed motions to vacate the July 3, 2018 order granting the motion to dismiss without leave to amend (Dkt. No. 93) and the order denying the motion to award service expenses (Dkt. No. 94), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), on the grounds that the undersigned "committed clear errors resulting in a decision that is manifestly unjust." (Dkt. No. 93 at 2; Dkt. No. 94 at 2.) The undersigned disagrees. Moreover, no trial was held, so the rule cited does not apply.
Accordingly, both motions are DENIED. Plaintiff is advised that this case is closed, and any further motion practice related to this case may result in the imposition of sanctions sua sponte on the grounds that Plaintiff is wasting limited judicial resources. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff retains his right to timely appeal the July 3, 2018 orders and judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
