Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03956/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03956-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 375
Nature of Suit: False Claims Act
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELIZABETH WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANGELA WRIGHT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-03956-KAW 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 33, 35

Plaintiff Elizabeth White (aka Curry) filed this case against Defendants Angela Wright, 

Melanie Levorsen, and the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA"), alleging that the VA 

wrongfully offset her retirement payments to pay for a debt for which Plaintiff claims she is not 

responsible. (Compl. at 4, Dkt. No. 1.) Defendants subsequently moved to dismiss the case. 

(Dkt. No. 16.) On February 1, 2018, the Court held a hearing on Defendants' motion. (Dkt. No. 

27.) On February 2, 2018, the Court issued an order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss, 

finding that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the case per the Veterans' Judicial Review Act of 

1988 ("VJRA"). (Dkt. No. 28.)

On February 5, 2018, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff, requesting the court's 

"review and reconsideration for new trial date." (Dkt. No. 30 at 1.) Plaintiff asserts that 

Defendants lied about the jurisdictional issue, and again disputed that she had incurred any debt. 

(Id. at 1-2.) The Court denied Plaintiff's request, explaining that it lacked jurisdiction over the 

case. (Dkt. No. 31 at 1-2.)

On February 5, 2019, the Court received a "Notice of Motion and Motion for 

Reconsideration." (Dkt. No. 33.) On February 20, 2019, the Court received a second "Notice of 

Motion and Motion for Reconsideration." (Dkt. No. 35.) In both motions, Plaintiff again asks for 

Case 4:17-cv-03956-KAW Document 36 Filed 03/06/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

reconsideration of the Court's orders, arguing the merits of the case. (Dkt. No. 33 at 8-13; Dkt. 

No. 35 at 1-2.) 

The Court DENIES the motions for reconsideration. As an initial matter, Plaintiff has 

failed to ask for leave to file a motion for reconsideration; Civil Local Rule 7-9 requires that a 

party be given leave prior to noticing a motion for reconsideration. No leave has been given. 

Even viewing Plaintiff's request as a motion for leave, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion. 

Plaintiff's motion still concerns the merits of whether the VA wrongfully offset her retirement 

payments to pay for an alleged debt. The Court cannot review the merits of Plaintiff's claim 

because, as explained in its February 2, 2018 order, it lacks jurisdiction over this case. (Dkt. No. 

28.) Therefore, even assuming that Plaintiff has a viable claim, this court is not the correct forum 

to decide that matter.

Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over this case, Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration 

are denied. The Court will not consider any further filings by Plaintiff because the case is closed. 

All future filings will be disregarded by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-03956-KAW Document 36 Filed 03/06/19 Page 2 of 2