Olukoya v. Badejo
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:20-cv-08001
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Olukoya v. Badejo, Judge Gilliam denied plaintiffs’ late request for permission to seek reconsideration, leaving the case closed.
The plaintiffs’ request to revisit the prior dismissal was denied, and the case remains closed; the opinion does not identify any further effect on the defendants.
What happened
In Olukoya v. Badejo, the court had dismissed the plaintiffs’ case for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied their request for default judgment in an earlier order.
The plaintiffs later asked for permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider that earlier order. They filed the request on May 4, 2022, nearly a year after the dismissal order and about seven months after it became a judgment under the court’s rules.
The court denied the request because it was too late and said the case remained closed. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the order.
The detailed version
- Olukoya v. Badejo · No. 4:20-cv-08001
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 30, 2023
Background
The court previously denied the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment and dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction on May 6, 2021. Personal jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority over a defendant. That earlier order dismissed the case in its entirety and directed the Clerk to terminate it.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Reconsideration is a request that the court revisit an earlier ruling. The court considered whether the plaintiffs could seek reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9(a), which applies to certain interlocutory orders—orders that do not finally resolve all claims and parties.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that its May 6, 2021 dismissal order was not an interlocutory order. It also explained that, although the court had not separately entered a judgment at the time, the dismissal became a judgment as a matter of law 150 days later, in October 2021.
Because the plaintiffs filed their request on May 4, 2022, nearly a year after the dismissal order and about seven months after the order became a judgment, the court found the request too late.
Ruling
The court DENIED the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The court stated that the case remained closed. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.