Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01604/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01604-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; DENYING MOTION FOR SEPARATE

JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 54(b); DENYING MOTION TO SET ASIDE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD; SETTING TIME LIMIT TO

FILE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT—No. C-05-01604 RMW

JAH

E-FILED on 5/18/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TODD S. GLASSEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMANO CORPORATION; MARK

WILLIAMS; HUDSON VENTURE

PARTNERS, L.P.; JAY GOLDBERG; THE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS

AND TECHNOLOGIES; and A. FRANCIS

ACKER;

Defendants.

No. C-05-01604 RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE A MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION; DENYING MOTION

FOR SEPARATE JUDGMENT UNDER

RULE 54(b); DENYING MOTION TO SET

ASIDE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD; SETTING

TIME LIMIT TO FILE MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

[Re Docket Nos. 169, 171-185]

Plaintiff Todd S. Glassey moves for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this court's

March 31, 2006 order dismissing claims against and granting summary judgment in favor of

defendants Amano Corporation, Mark Williams, Jay Goldberg, Hudson Venture Partners, L.P., and

the National Institute of Standards and Technologies. Nothing Glassey presents indicates the court

failed to consider facts or law that would change the outcome in the March 31, 2006 order. 

Glassey's motion for leave is therefore denied on the merits.

Case 5:05-cv-01604-RMW Document 186 Filed 05/18/06 Page 1 of 4
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

 There is currently no judgment from which Glassey may take an appeal, and this court has not

certified any issues for interlocutory appeal. Whether an order is an appealable collateral order that

"conclusively determine[s] the disputed question, resolve[s] an important issue completely separate

from the merits of the action, and [would] be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final

judgment," as required by Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978) (internal

quotation marks omitted), is a matter to be determined by the reviewing appellate court. See

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir. 2005).

2

 Glassey's motions to amend his complaint and add as a defendant Blueslate Solutions LLP were

denied in the March 31, 2006 order.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; DENYING MOTION FOR SEPARATE

JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 54(b); DENYING MOTION TO SET ASIDE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD; SETTING TIME LIMIT TO

FILE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT—No. C-05-01604 RMW

JAH 2

Defendants Amano, Williams, Goldberg, and Hudson move for entry of a separate judgment

in their favors under Rule 54(b). "[P]iecemeal appeals in cases which should be reviewed only as

single units" are highly disfavored. See Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 797-98 (9th Cir.

1991). While the court understands these defendants' desires for final resolution of Glassey's claims

against them, there is no compelling reason that the appellate courts should have to consider this

matter piecemeal. For higher courts to go through the voluminous record in this case multiple times

would be a waste of judicial resources. The motion for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) is

denied.

Glassey moves to set aside the arbitration award which was confirmed by the California

Superior Court. Setting aside the arbitration award would necessarily overturn the state court's

confirmation of the award and is therefore impermissible under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 125 S. Ct. 1517 (2005). Glassey's motion to set

aside the arbitration award is therefore denied.

Glassey has lodged documents with this court that indicate he is currently pursuing an appeal

before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While Glassey's appeal appears premature1

 and

directed to the wrong court, among other problems, those determinations are for the Court of

Appeals. As there will be no reconsideration of the March 31, 2006 order, Glassey's operative

complaint (his second amended complaint, docket no. 25) remains dismissed. With no operative

complaint in this action and therefore no defendants,2 substantive motions such as the one to set

aside the arbitration award cannot be granted. If Glassey wishes to file (1) an amended complaint

conforming to the limits of the March 31, 2006 order or (2) a motion for leave to amend his

Case 5:05-cv-01604-RMW Document 186 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; DENYING MOTION FOR SEPARATE

JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 54(b); DENYING MOTION TO SET ASIDE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD; SETTING TIME LIMIT TO

FILE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT—No. C-05-01604 RMW

JAH 3

complaint under Rule 15(a) and within the limits set by the March 31, 2006 order, he must do so by

June 1, 2006; otherwise, the court will enter a final judgment in this action.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court 

(1) denies Glassey's motion for reconsideration;

(2) denies Amano, Williams, Goldberg, and Hudson's motion for entry of a separate

judgment under Rule 54(b);

(3) denies Glassey's motion to set aside the arbitration award; 

(4) instructs Glassey that the court will enter a final judgment in this action unless he

files an amended complaint conforming to the limits of the March 31, 2006 order or a

motion for leave to amend his complaint under Rule 15(a) and within the limits set by

the March 31, 2006 order by June 1, 2006.

DATED: 5/18/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01604-RMW Document 186 Filed 05/18/06 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; DENYING MOTION FOR SEPARATE

JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 54(b); DENYING MOTION TO SET ASIDE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD; SETTING TIME LIMIT TO

FILE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT—No. C-05-01604 RMW

JAH 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Plaintiff (pro se):

Todd S. Glassey todd.glassey@att.net 

Counsel for Defendants:

Peter L. Isola peterisola@dwt.com 

Salle E. Yoo salleyoo@dwt.com 

Mark Williams (pro se)

Andrea L. Courtney andrea.courtney@pillsburylaw.com 

Mark St. Angelo mark.st.angelo@usdoj.gov 

Joann M. Swanson joann.swanson@usdoj.gov 

Kevin V. Ryan 

A. Francis Acker (pro se)

Chinhayi J. Coleman chinhayi.j.coleman@usdoj.gov 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 5/18/06 /s/ JH

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-01604-RMW Document 186 Filed 05/18/06 Page 4 of 4