Love v. Nguyen
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-02072
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Love v. Nguyen: Judge Davila denied reconsideration after dismissing Love’s action for failure to prosecute.
Samuel Love’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leaving the prior dismissal of his action in place; the opinion does not state any further effect on the defendants.
What happened
In Love v. Nguyen, Samuel Love asked the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of his action for failing to move the case forward. The court had ordered Love to explain by June 21, 2021, why the case should not be dismissed, but he did not respond by that deadline.
The court denied the reconsideration motion. It said Love had not obtained the required permission to file the motion, had filed it after judgment was entered, and had not shown any of the circumstances required for reconsideration. The court also found that his explanation about technical problems did not establish a basis for relief. His request to pause the order so he could seek permission for an immediate appeal was moot because judgment had already been entered.
Judge Davila issued the order on June 30, 2021. The ruling left the prior dismissal in place and denied Love’s motion for reconsideration.
The detailed version
- Love v. Nguyen · No. 5:20-cv-02072
- Edward Davila
- June 30, 2021
Background
Samuel Love filed the action on March 25,
- After the summons return was filed on June 10, 2020, he took no further action while the case was pending. On June 14, 2021, the court ordered him to show cause—meaning to explain—why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and required a written response by June
- The court warned that failure to respond by the deadline would result in dismissal. Love did not file a response by the deadline, so the court dismissed the action on June
- He filed a show-cause response after the dismissal, and judgment was entered on June 23.
Love filed the reconsideration motion on June 28. He cited “Local Rule 303(c),” but the court stated that the cited rule does not exist and that the dismissal order had not been entered by a magistrate judge. The court treated the motion as one under Civil Local Rule 7-9.
Court’s analysis
The court found the motion procedurally improper for two reasons. First, Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) requires a party to obtain the court’s permission before noticing a motion for reconsideration, and Love had not sought that permission. Second, the rule requires the request to be made before entry of a judgment resolving the claims and the parties’ rights and liabilities, but judgment had already been entered.
The court also explained that the motion would fail even if Love had obtained permission and judgment had not yet been entered. Under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), reconsideration requires a material difference in fact or law, new material facts or a change in law after the earlier order, or a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously presented. The court found that Love’s motion showed none of these circumstances.
Love’s motion repeated his earlier show-cause response, including email exchanges and complaints about opposing counsel. The court stated that, even if defense counsel had refused to participate in the General Order 56 process, Love had not explained why he failed to seek relief from the court as that order allowed. The court also noted that Love had taken no action before the court for more than a year and that his attorneys had filed multiple documents in other cases on June 21 despite his claim that technical issues prevented a timely response in this case. The court noted that Love provided no legal authority supporting reconsideration.
Disposition
The court found no basis to reconsider the earlier dismissal and denied Love’s motion for reconsideration. It also found moot his alternative request to stay the order for 30 days so he could seek permission to pursue an immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), because judgment had already been entered. Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order on June 30, 2021.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.