United States v. Molen

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAMES O. MOLEN (also known as…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: May 6, 2011

2:10-cv-02591 MCE KJN PS (E.D. Cal. May. 6, 2011)

Opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAMES O. MOLEN (also known as James-Orbin: Molen), et al., Defendants. No. 2:10-cv-02591 MCE KJN PS United States District Court, E.D. California. May 6, 2011

          ORDER

          KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

         Defendants James O. Molen (a.k.a. James-Orbin: Molen) and Sandra L. Molen (a.k.a. Sandra-Lyn: Molen) (collectively, the "Molens" or "defendants") are proceeding without counsel.¹ In an order dated April 20, 2011 (the "Order"), the undersigned denied the Molens' "Motion For Judicial Notice Under 44 U.S.C. § 1507 - Federal Register Act and Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(c) & (d), and Motion to Render Judgment on Implied Contract Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)" (Dkt. No. 35), after construing that filing as a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Order, Dkt. No. 60).

1 This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 302(c)(21). (See Dkt. No. 11.)

         On May 2, 2011, the Molens filed a document entitled "Opposition to Court Order Denying Motion For Judicial Notice Under 44 U.S.C. § 1507 - Federal Register Act and Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(c) & (d), and Motion to Render Judgment on Implied Contract Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)" (the "Opposition"). (Dkt. No. 61.) In the Opposition, the Molens cite to the exact same authorities they cited in their motion. (Compare Dkt. No. 35 at 2 with Dkt. No. 61 at 3.) The Molens argue that the court "should review its denial of the FRCP 12(b)(6) motion and make a decision based on the merits of the motion and not upon the basis of some arbitrary rules that apply to BAR attorneys." (Id. at 2.) The Molens also argue that "Requests for Judicial Notice should never be a technical reason to dismiss a motion or deny due process, as the Defendants believe has occurred." (Id. at 3.)

         The undersigned construes the Molens' Opposition as a motion for reconsideration of the court's Order dated April 20, 2011. Pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 230(j), a motion for reconsideration must state "what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion" and "why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion." E.D. Local Rule 230(j)(3)-(4). The Opposition does not describe new or different facts or circumstances that would warrant reconsideration of the court's Order. Further, the Molens' argument that their motion (Dkt. No. 35) was denied for "technical reasons" is without basis. While the court's Order noted the motion's technical and procedural shortcomings, the Order addressed the motion on its substantive merits and denied the motion thereon. (Order at 3-5 (construing the improperly-filed motion as a motion for judgment on the pleadings) and 5-10 (analyzing the merits of the arguments made therein).)

         Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Accordingly, to the extent the Molens intended the Opposition (Dkt. No. 61) to serve as a motion for reconsideration of the court's Order, the motion for reconsideration is denied.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.