Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01446/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01446-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Plaintiff also names as defendants “Washington Mutual Bank, F.A.” and

“Washington Mutual.” Washington Mutual Bank has notified the Court it was formerly

known as “Washington Mutual Bank, FA.” It appears from the complaint that “Washington

Mutual” is the same entity, as there is no indication of service upon, or any separate

appearance by, an entity by that name. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES M. FORDJOUR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, et

al.,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

No. C 07-1446 MMC (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME; DIRECTING

DEFENDANTS TO RE-SERVE

MOVING PAPERS UPON

PLAINTIFF; DENYING MOTION TO

RENEW MOTION FOR

PERMANENT INJUNCTION

(Docket No. 14 & 15)

On March 13, 2007, plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at San

Quentin State Prison and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil action against

defendant Washington Mutual Bank,1

 alleging breach of contract as well as violations of the

Fair Credit Reporting Act and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985. On May 24, 2007, defendant

Washington Mutual Bank filed a motion to compel arbitration and for a stay of this action,

and on June 8, 2007, the Court set a briefing schedule on said motion. Now before the Court

is plaintiff’s motion, filed June 15, 2007, for an extension of time in which to file an

opposition, and requesting service of defendants’ moving papers upon him and upon his

“representative.”

With their moving papers, defendants included proofs of service indicating they had

served plaintiff with those papers at his current address. Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff’s

Case 3:07-cv-01446-MMC Document 16 Filed 06/27/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

statement that he never received them, defendants are hereby DIRECTED to serve their

moving papers upon plaintiff one additional time, on or before July 5, 2007. Plaintiff,

however, has no right to have defendants serve his “representative,” an individual identified

as Maria Dufie Djugba residing in El Cerrito, California, who is not an attorney. Good cause

appearing, plaintiff will be granted an extension of time, to and including August 6, 2007, in

which to file any opposition to defendant’s motion. If plaintiff files opposition, defendant

shall file a reply to such opposition no later than 14 days after the date such opposition is

filed. 

Also before the Court is plaintiff’s motion, filed June 20, 2007, to “renew” his motion

for a permanent injunction. In its June 8, 2007 order setting a briefing schedule on

defendant’s motion, the Court denied a motion, filed by plaintiff March 13, 2007, by which

plaintiff sought a permanent injunction. Said motion was denied on the ground plaintiff had

neither complied with the notice requirement of Rule 65(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, nor certified his reasons for his not having provided such notice, as required by

Rule 65(b). Although plaintiff has served the present motion upon defense counsel, he has

not included in his present motion any basis for a permanent injunction or any description of

the injunctive relief he seeks. Plaintiff may not rely on his prior motion by reference because

defendants had no notice of said motion. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to “renew” his

motion for a permanent injunction is hereby DENIED. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 14 and 15.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 27, 2007

_________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01446-MMC Document 16 Filed 06/27/07 Page 2 of 2