Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06128/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06128-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD GLASSEY,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-6128 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING SUMMARY

MOTION TO CONFIRM NEW

D-LINK CORPORATION; and DOES CLASS OF PLAINTIFFS

1-10.

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiff’s Summary Motion to Confirm a new Class of Plaintiff[s]. 

The motion purportedly seeks an order from the court allowing certain individuals

“operating ‘Servers which ‘provide time of day’ information to other computers on the

Internet’ as a class of potential plaintiff[s] in the matter herein.” No opposition to the motion

has been filed. 

Preliminarily, it is difficult for the court to decipher the meaning of plaintiff’s motion,

as much of the content is indecipherable. Even if it weren’t, plaintiff has completely failed

to set forth any legal basis for the relief he seeks. In particular, plaintiff has failed to invoke

any federal rule of civil procedure, or local rule, which would allow plaintiff to seek to

“confirm” a new “class of plaintiffs” in this action, as he purportedly seeks to do. Moreover,

it is unclear that any such rule could ever apply in the instant case. The operative

complaint in this case contains no class action allegations, and was never plead as a class

action complaint. Even if it had been, a pro se plaintiff cannot prosecute a class action. 

Furthermore, the operative complaint at issue was recently dismissed, and no amended

complaint has yet been filed. 

Case 4:06-cv-06128-PJH Document 26 Filed 01/09/07 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

For all these reasons, no legal basis exists for plaintiff’s motion. As such, the court

hereby DENIES it. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-06128-PJH Document 26 Filed 01/09/07 Page 2 of 2