Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02123/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02123-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHUCK SAUER and CASE NO. 02-CV-2123 GEB CMK

SANDRA SAUER,

Plaintiffs,

vs. ORDER

USA, et al, 

Defendants.

/

Following the entry of final judgment in the abovereferenced matter, Plaintiffs filed two motions seeking further

post-judgment relief. On March 21, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a

document entitled “Motion to Dismiss the Government’s Countercomplaint” (“Motion to Dismiss”). On March 30, 2005, Plaintiffs

filed a document entitled “Request for 20 Day Extension to

Request for Reconsideration by District Court Magistrate Judge’s

Ruling” (“Request for Extension”). 

On March 16, 2005, this Court adopted the findings and

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and entered its order

granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (“Order”). 

Final judgment (“Judgment”) on said Order was entered the same

day. Plaintiffs contend that they did not receive either the

Case 2:02-cv-02123-GEB -CMK Document 109 Filed 05/03/05 Page 1 of 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

2

Order or Judgment, and now request additional time to file a

motion for reconsideration. 

Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss involves a post judgment

request to dismiss a cause of action set forth in Defendants’

counterclaim. This motion will be denied as moot since final

judgment has already been entered which necessarily resolved all

remaining issues in this action. 

Request for Extension

In Plaintiffs’ Request for Extension, they seek additional

time to seek reconsideration of the court’s Order and Judgment. 

It is not necessary, however, for this court to address

Plaintiffs’ request for additional time to file a motion for

reconsideration, since the Clerk of the Court is ordered to

reserve plaintiffs with the Order (Document Entry # 103) and the

Judgment (Document Entry #104). By so doing, Plaintiffs’

opportunity to file post-judgment motions under the Local Rules

and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will begin from the date

of reservice. Plaintiffs are cautioned, however, that to prevail

on a motion for reconsideration, a party must comply with the

provisions of Local Rule 78-230(k). See also, In re Arrowhead

Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994);

Amesco Exports, Inc. v. Associated Aircraft Mfg. & Sales, Inc. 87

F. Supp. 2d 1013 (C.D. Cal., 1997), citing Kern-Tulare Water

Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal.

1986) and Publishers Resource, Inc. v. Walker-Davis

Publications, Inc., 762 F.2d 557, 561 (7th Cir. 1985).

Case 2:02-cv-02123-GEB -CMK Document 109 Filed 05/03/05 Page 2 of 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

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss is denied. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to reserve the Order

(Document # 103) and the Judgment (Document Entry #104) upon

Plaintiffs. 

3. Plaintiffs’ Request for Extension is denied without

prejudice for the reasons herein stated. Any time period

afforded Plaintiffs to file post-judgment motions under the Local

Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall commence

upon the reservice of Documents #103 and # 104.

Dated: April 29, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:02-cv-02123-GEB -CMK Document 109 Filed 05/03/05 Page 3 of 3