Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228-82/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RICHARD LOFTUS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:13-cv-00228-JD 

ORDER RE

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 768, 767

Pro se plaintiffs Adil and Roda Hiramanek (“Hiramanek”) have filed a motion for 

reconsideration of Judge Ronald M. Whyte’s order denying plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial, Dkt. 

No. 768, and an administrative motion for leave to file excess pages in the reconsideration motion, 

Dkt. No. 767. The motions are denied.

Adil Hiramanek has been declared a vexatious litigant in the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of California and in the California state court system. Hiramanek v. 

California Judicial Council, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-4377-RMW, Dkt. No. 34 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 

2016) (“Vexatious Litigant Order”); Dkt. No. 732-4, Exh. A. He has consistently engaged in 

frivolous motion practice, imposing significant unnecessary costs on many adverse parties and a 

needless burden on the courts. Vexatious Litigant Order at 17. In this action alone, Hiramanek 

has filed 91 motions, all of which have been denied. Many of those motions substantially exceed 

the page limits imposed by the local rules. These facts provide important context to the currently 

pending motions. 

Hiramanek’s oversize motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 768, is frivolous and fails to 

comply with the Local Rules. Hiramanek has violated Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) by filing a motion 

for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court. The motion could properly be denied 

on that basis alone. The motion also flouts Local Rule 7-9(c) by repeating several arguments 

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 770 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 3
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

Hiramanek made in the prior unsuccessful motion for a new trial, including inflammatory 

accusations against Judge Whyte that lack any evidentiary support whatsoever. See Dkt. No. 712 

at 24; Dkt. No. 768 at 2. In addition, Hiramanek fails to raise a proper basis for reconsideration. 

Contrary to Hiramanek’s assertion, there has been no emergence of any material fact since the 

entry of Judge Whyte’s order denying a new trial. Dkt. No. 768 at 2. Hiramanek says he recently 

discovered that Judge Whyte, while in private practice in the 1970’s and 1980’s, sometimes 

represented Santa Clara County. Id. But that fact is wholly immaterial to any of the issues 

addressed in Judge Whyte’s order denying Hiramanek’s motion for a new trial. Nor has there 

been a manifest failure to consider any material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously 

presented to the Court. Nearly all of the “facts” and legal arguments referenced in Hiramanek’s 

motion are simply disagreements with rulings made by Judge Whyte in the underlying trial, and 

are rehashed versions of arguments presented in Hiramanek’s motion for a new trial. See 

generally Dkt. No. 712; Dkt. No. 768. The remainder, generally, are allegations that Judge 

Whyte’s order denying a new trial was “fraudulently engineer[ed],” that the same order somehow 

defamed Hiramanek, and that this entire case has been “rigged” against Mr. Haramanek. Dkt. No. 

768 at 34. These wholly unsubstantiated arguments are frivolous, and the motion for 

reconsideration is denied.

Hiramanek’s motion for leave to file an overlong motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 767, 

is also denied. Hiramanek argues that the existence of “about 50 errors” in Judge Whyte’s order 

denying a new trial -- which, Hiramanek argues, was actually “engineered/authored” by 

Defendants” -- necessitates the excess pages. Id. at 1. But the Court has reviewed Hiramanek’s 

motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 68, as well as Judge Whyte’s order denying a new trial, Dkt. 

No. 758, and concludes that Hiramanek’s motion does not identify any proper bases (much less 50 

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 770 Filed 11/15/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

of them) for reconsideration of Judge Whyte’s order. Hiramanek’s motion for leave is 

consequently denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 770 Filed 11/15/16 Page 3 of 3