Austin v. Kemper Corporation
- Susan Illston
- 3:21-cv-03208
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Austin v. Kemper Corporation (Insurance), Judge Illston denied Austin’s reconsideration motion because he lacked required leave and showed no merit.
George Jarvis Austin and Kemper Corporation (Insurance); the order directly affected Austin’s request to revisit the earlier dismissal order.
What happened
In Austin v. Kemper Corporation (Insurance), George Jarvis Austin asked the court to reconsider its order dismissing his case. He filed the request on the same day as the dismissal order and later appealed that order.
The court said Austin did not request permission required by the court’s local rules before filing the reconsideration motion. The court also found no merit in his arguments about a separate scheduling-order appeal and alleged judicial misconduct or a conflict of interest.
Judge Susan Illston denied the motion for reconsideration. The opinion does not change or otherwise rule on the earlier dismissal order’s underlying merits.
The detailed version
- Austin v. Kemper Corporation · No. 3:21-cv-03208
- Susan Illston
- Mar. 16, 2022
Background
George Jarvis Austin moved for reconsideration of the court’s dismissal order. He filed that motion on December 15, 2021, the same day the dismissal order was filed. Austin appealed the dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on January 25, 2022. The Ninth Circuit held the appeal proceedings in abeyance while the district court considered the reconsideration motion.
Arguments and analysis
Austin did not request permission under Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) before filing the motion. The court denied the motion on that basis. The court also independently found no merit in the motion. It rejected Austin’s argument that his separate appeal of a scheduling order raised an issue that had to be resolved before the court decided the motion to dismiss. The court also found Austin’s allegations of judicial misconduct and a conflict of interest unfounded, citing an order in another case involving him.
Ruling
The court denied Austin’s Motion for Reconsideration. This order addressed the reconsideration request; it did not decide the merits of the underlying dismissal order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.