Austin v. Kemper Corporation (Insurance)

Opinion

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

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS 9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 100, 107, 109 10 KEMPER CORPORATION (INSURANCE), 11 Defendant. 12 13 Three motions remain pending in the above-captioned case, which concluded with judgment 14 for defendant on December 15, 2021. Dkt. Nos. 95, 96. The Court rules as follows. 15 Plaintiff’s motion for new trial, filed on December 17, 2021. Dkt. No. 100. The motion for 16 a new trial is nearly identical to a motion for reconsideration plaintiff filed on December 15, 2021. 17 Dkt. No. 98. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration due to plaintiff’s failure to request 18 leave under the Local Rules and further found the motion for reconsideration meritless. Dkt. No. 19 121. The pending motion for new trial relies on the same grounds asserted in the motion for 20 reconsideration. The Court thus finds the motion for a new trial meritless for the same reasons 21 articulated in the order denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. The motion for new trial is 22 DENIED. 23 Plaintiff’s motion to amend/correct clerk’s notice, filed on December 22, 2021. Dkt. No. 24 107. Plaintiff’s motion here is directed to a clerk’s notice issued on December 22, 2021, vacating a 25 hearing improperly calendared by plaintiff for December 23, 2021 for his motion for a new trial 26 discussed above. Dkt. Nos. 106, 100. Plaintiff set the hearing to take place seven days after the 27 filing of the motion for a new trial, in contravention of Civil Local Rule 7-2(a) which states “all 1 for hearing not less than 35 days after filing of the motion.” The motion to amend/correct the clerk’s 2 || notice vacating his improperly set hearing is DENIED. 3 Plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, filed on January 23, 2022. Dkt. No. 4 109. The Court is unable to ascertain whether plaintiff has already paid filing fees to the Ninth 5 Circuit pending the resolution of his motion. Although plaintiff purports to attach receipts or 6 || affidavit evincing that he has paid his appeal fees “‘in full,” see, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 126-3, 125-3, 123-1, 7 || none of the submitted materials are actual receipts from the Ninth Circuit. In any event, □□□□□□□□□□□ 8 motion fails under Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C) because he “has failed to demonstrate to this Court 9 that he has presented, or intends to present, any non-frivolous argument on appeal, and therefore he 10 || does not meet the standard for IFP status on appeal.” Zambrano v. Gipson, No. LA CV 15-01794- 11 VBF, 2016 WL 4060649, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2016). His motion for leave to appeal in forma 12 || pauperis “provides no guidance as to the arguments petitioner intends to present on his pending 5 13 appeal, nor does his notice of appeal.” Jd. See also Davis v. Ghosh, No. 13-CV-4670, 2015 WL 14 || 3396805, at *7 (N.D. Ill. May 26, 2015) (“A motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal 3 15 should set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal.”). The motion for leave to appeal in a 16 || forma pauperis is DENIED.

18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: June 23, 2022 Sate WU tee 21 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28