Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00277/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00277-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOROTHY GRANT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WESTAFF TEMPORARY AGENCY,

Defendant /

No. C-04-0277 MMC

ORDER DENYING POST-JUDGMENT

MOTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Docket No. 92, 94)

Before the Court are two post-judgment motions filed by plaintiff Dorothy Grant

(“Grant”): (1) a motion filed February 6, 2006 to “vacate summary judgment”; and (2) a

motion filed February 7, 2006 for reconsideration of the Court’s January 6, 2006 order

granting summary judgment for defendant Westaff Temporary Agency (“Westaff”). Both

motions suffer from a number of defects.

First, Grant has not submitted any evidence in support of her motions. The Court

may not consider the statements of fact contained in her motions unless they are contained

in a declaration filed under penalty of perjury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1746.

Second, the motions are not accompanied by proofs of service attesting that the

motions have been served on Westaff. The proofs of service filed by Grant attest only that

the motions were served on the Court. The Court may not consider motions that are not

served on the opposing party except under rare circumstances not present in the instant

Case 3:04-cv-00277-MMC Document 95 Filed 02/13/06 Page 1 of 2
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

action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a) (“[E]very written motion . . . shall be served upon each of

the parties.”)

Third, Grant has not noticed the motions for a hearing. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule

7-2, “all motions must be . . . noticed in writing on the motion calendar of the assigned

judge for hearing not less than 35 days after service of the motion.” See Civil L.R. 7-2.

Accordingly, Grant’s post-judgment motions are hereby DENIED, without prejudice

to Grant’s filing a new post-judgment motion that remedies the defects noted above.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 92 and 94.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00277-MMC Document 95 Filed 02/13/06 Page 2 of 2