Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01604/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01604-0/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

1 Plaintiff appears to be filing motions under the heading of proposed orders, although

admittedly, it is not certain. Thus, it is unclear to the court which motions plaintiff believes are calendared

for September 9, 2005.

ORDERVACATINGHEARINGSON PLAINTIFF'SMOTIONS; DENYING MOTION TO STAYMOTIONSTODISMISS—C-05-

01604 RMW

MAG

E-FILED on 8/26/05

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, JAY GOLDBERG, THE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS

AND TECHNOLOGIES, and A. FRANCIS

ACKER

Defendants.

No. C-05-01604 RMW

ORDER VACATING HEARINGS ON

PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS; DENYING

MOTION TO STAY MOTIONS TO DISMISS

[Re Docket Nos. 95, 103, 105]

Pro se plaintiff Todd S. Glassey has apparently calendared several motions for September 9, 2005

involving many of the defendants named in this action.1 Defendant National Institute of Standards and

Technologies ("NIST") moved for summary judgment, setting the hearing for August 19, 2005. Hudson

Venture Partners ("Hudson") has filed a motion to dismiss that is presently calendared for October 28,

2005. Because it would be more efficient to consider the motions to dismiss in tandem, the court continued

NIST's motion to dismiss to October 28, 2005 to coincide with the Hudson Partners motion to dismiss. 

Case 5:05-cv-01604-RMW Document 120 Filed 08/26/05 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

2 Plaintiff's letter misconstrued the court's actions as intentionally permitting his calendared

motions to go forward in advance of the motions to dismiss. As set forth above, consolidating the hearings

on the motion to dismiss was made for the sake of efficiency, not as any indication of the court's opinions of

the merits of this action.

3

In particular, the court notes that there may be a motion to dismiss filed by Mark Williams

pending but cannot determine when (or if) that motion is calendared or if has been otherwise withdrawn or

mooted by amendment of the complaint.

ORDERVACATINGHEARINGSON PLAINTIFF'SMOTIONS; DENYING MOTION TO STAYMOTIONSTODISMISS—C-05-

01604 RMW

MAG 2

On August 19, 2005, the court received a letter from defendant Hudson requesting that the motions

calendared for September 9, 2005 be moved to October 28, 2005.2 It contends it was not aware that the

motions had been calendared. Plaintiff responded with a letter to the court stating that all defendants were

served with notice of the calendared motions.

As Plaintiff has been granted access to ECF, all documents filed by him since early July have been

e-filed. Thus, these notices were served by e-mail on defendants. Nevertheless, the court finds that it

would serve the interest of judicial economy to consider plaintiff's September 9 motions on the same date at

the October 28, 2005 motions to dismiss. The court will take the opportunity to decide whether Glassey's

causes of action survive the various defendants' 12(b)(6) motions before considering the merits of his

various motions. 

ORDER

The court vacates all hearing dates exceptfor defendants' motions to dismiss. The court also vacates

the case management conference scheduled for September 2, 2005. The following motions to dismiss are

calendared for October 28, 2005: NIST's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 66), Hudson's Motion to Dismiss

(Docket No. 89). The court will also conduct a case management conference on that date at 10:30 a.m. The

parties shall file a joint case management statement no later than October 21, 2005.

Should any other defendant seek to dismiss plaintiff's claims against it, that defendant shall file notice

suchmotionno later than September 2, 2005. Ifa defendant has previouslymoved to dismiss but the hearing

is not calendared for October 28, 2005, that defendant is to renotice its motion to dismiss for October 28,

2005 no later than September 2, 2005.3 Plaintiff's motion to stay the pending motions to dismiss (Docket No.

95) is DENIED.

Case 5:05-cv-01604-RMW Document 120 Filed 08/26/05 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

ORDERVACATINGHEARINGSON PLAINTIFF'SMOTIONS; DENYING MOTION TO STAYMOTIONSTODISMISS—C-05-

01604 RMW

MAG 3

Further, plaintiff is to submit before September 2, 2005 a list of motions on the docket as of August

19, 2005 that he believes should be calendared. The list shall include only the following information for each

motion:

• Title of the document as listed on ECF

• Docket number 

• Date on which the motion was originally calendared

• Which defendants were served on the motion

• A brief (no more than 4 lines) description of the basis or purpose of the motion 

The court will review these motions in conjunction with plaintiff'sworkflowdocument (Docket No. 71-1) and

willdetermine whetherfurther briefing or a hearing is appropriate. The court will issue a written order regarding

whichofplaintiff's pendingmotions should be calendared, and willset briefing and argument schedulesforsuch

motions.

DATED: 8/25/05 /s/ Ronald M. Whyte

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01604-RMW Document 120 Filed 08/26/05 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

ORDERVACATINGHEARINGSON PLAINTIFF'SMOTIONS; DENYING MOTION TO STAYMOTIONSTODISMISS—C-05-

01604 RMW

MAG 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Plaintiff:

Todd Steven Glassey todd.glassey@att.net 

Counsel for Defendant(s):

Andrea L. Courtney andrea.courtney@pillsburylaw.com

Peter L. Isola peterisola@dwt.com 

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

Joann M. Swanson joann.swanson@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: 8/26/05 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-01604-RMW Document 120 Filed 08/26/05 Page 4 of 4