Olukoya v. Badejo

N.D. California

Olukoya v. Badejo

DecidedMarch 30, 2023

Docket4:20-cv-08001

StatusUnknown

This text of Olukoya v. Badejo (Olukoya v. Badejo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Olukoya v. Badejo, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DANIEL KOLAWOLE OLUKOYA, et al., Case No. 20-cv-08001-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 31 10 MAUREEN BADEJO, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment and dismissed the case for lack of 14 personal jurisdiction on May 6, 2021. See generally Dkt. No. 26 (“Order”). Pending before the 15 Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Order. Dkt. No. 31 16 (“Mot.”). The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the 17 matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons discussed below, the Court 18 DENIES the motion. 19 Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) provides as follows:

20 Before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case, any party may make a 21 motion before a Judge requesting that the Judge grant the party leave to file a motion for reconsideration of any interlocutory order on any 22 ground set forth in Civil L.R. 7-9 (b). 23 Civ. L-R. 7-9(a).1 24 The Court’s May 6, 2021 order dismissed Plaintiffs’ case in its entirety and directed the 25 Clerk to terminate the case. See Order at 7. The Court should also have entered a judgment at that 26

27 1 The Court’s dismissal order was not an “interlocutory order,” so Local Rule 7-9 likely does not 1 point, but neglected to do so. But the Court’s dismissal order ripened into entry of judgment as a 2 matter of law 150 days later, in October 2021. See Stephanie-Cardona LLC vy. Smith’s Food and 3 || Drug Centers, Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 704 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that “[p]Jursuant to 4 Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(7)(A)(i) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(b)(2), judgment was entered as a matter of law 5 on November 15, 2004, 150 days after the docketing of the stipulation and order” disposing of all 6 || claims in the complaint and denying all relief to plaintiff, because “[t]he rules plainly provide that 7 || judgment is entered when it is set forth on a separate document or when 150 days have run, 8 whichever is earlier” (emphasis in original)). 9 Because Plaintiffs filed this motion on May 4, 2022, nearly a full year after the Court 10 || issued its dismissal order and around seven months after that order ripened into a judgment, it is ll well too late to seek reconsideration, and Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. This case remains 12 || closed.

13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 || Dated: 3/30/2023 16 /Mapurerd 3 Sh ab. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DANIEL KOLAWOLE OLUKOYA, et al., Case No. 20-cv-08001-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 31 10 MAUREEN BADEJO, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment and dismissed the case for lack of 14 personal jurisdiction on May 6, 2021. See generally Dkt. No. 26 (“Order”). Pending before the 15 Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Order. Dkt. No. 31 16 (“Mot.”). The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the 17 matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons discussed below, the Court 18 DENIES the motion. 19 Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) provides as follows:

20 Before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case, any party may make a 21 motion before a Judge requesting that the Judge grant the party leave to file a motion for reconsideration of any interlocutory order on any 22 ground set forth in Civil L.R. 7-9 (b). 23 Civ. L-R. 7-9(a).1 24 The Court’s May 6, 2021 order dismissed Plaintiffs’ case in its entirety and directed the 25 Clerk to terminate the case. See Order at 7. The Court should also have entered a judgment at that 26

27 1 The Court’s dismissal order was not an “interlocutory order,” so Local Rule 7-9 likely does not 1 point, but neglected to do so. But the Court’s dismissal order ripened into entry of judgment as a 2 matter of law 150 days later, in October 2021. See Stephanie-Cardona LLC vy. Smith’s Food and 3 || Drug Centers, Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 704 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that “[p]Jursuant to 4 Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(7)(A)(i) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(b)(2), judgment was entered as a matter of law 5 on November 15, 2004, 150 days after the docketing of the stipulation and order” disposing of all 6 || claims in the complaint and denying all relief to plaintiff, because “[t]he rules plainly provide that 7 || judgment is entered when it is set forth on a separate document or when 150 days have run, 8 whichever is earlier” (emphasis in original)). 9 Because Plaintiffs filed this motion on May 4, 2022, nearly a full year after the Court 10 || issued its dismissal order and around seven months after that order ripened into a judgment, it is ll well too late to seek reconsideration, and Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. This case remains 12 || closed.

13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 || Dated: 3/30/2023 16 /Mapurerd 3 Sh ab. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Olukoya v. Badejo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olukoya-v-badejo-cand-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack