Austin v. Kemper Corporation (Insurance)

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN, Case No. 21-cv-03208-SI

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

13 KEMPER CORPORATION Re: Dkt. No. 98 (INSURANCE), 14 Defendant. 15

16 Before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration filed on December 15, 2021, Dkt. 17 No. 98, the same day the Court filed the dismissal order of which plaintiff requests reconsideration. 18 Dkt. No. 95. Plaintiff appealed this Court’s dismissal order to the Ninth Circuit on January 25, 19 2022. Dkt. No. 117. The Ninth Circuit has held proceedings in abeyance pending this Court’s 20 resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. No. 117. 21 Plaintiff failed to request leave under Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) to file a motion for 22 reconsideration. The Court denies the motion on this basis. See Oliver v. City & Cty. of San 23 Francisco, No. C 07-2460 JL, 2009 WL 10736489, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2009) (denying motion 24 for reconsideration due to failure to comply with Local Rules). The Court also finds no merit to 25 plaintiff’s motion. First, plaintiff’s separate appeal of a non-appealable scheduling order did not 26 present an “issue that would precede” the Court’s determination of the motion to dismiss (as plaintiff 27 put it). Second, plaintiff’s assertions of “judicial misconduct” or “conflict of interest” are 1 unfounded, as discussed in this Court’s order, filed on December 17, 2021, in one of plaintiffs other 2 cases, Austin v. ABC Legal, 3:21-cv-09076-SI (N.D. Cal.) at Dkt. No. 24. 3 The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: March 16, 2022 Site WU tee 7 SUSAN ILLSTON 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 a 12

13 14

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28