Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583-54/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY D. HAMILTON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

)

HENRY W. WILLMS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 02-6583 AWI SMS

ORDER REGARDING

PLAINTIFFS’ MAY 17, 2007

FILINGS AND DEFENDANTS’ MAY

21, 2007 FILING

Plaintiff Terry Hamilton and Plaintiff Sharon Hamilton (“Plaintiffs”) have filed motions

for reconsideration of the court’s order enforcing the December 4, 2006 oral stipulation. The

motions for reconsideration were set for hearing on May 21, 2007. On May 14, 2007, Plaintiffs

filed a motion for an enlargement of time to file a reply to Defendants’ oppositions to their

motions. Plaintiffs ask that they be allowed to file a reply up to May 16, 2007. On May 15,

2007, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. On May 17, 2007, the court granted

Plaintiffs’ motion for an enlargement of time to file a reply, ordered Plaintiffs to file any reply by

4:00 p.m. on May 17, 2007, vacated the May 21, 2007 hearing date, and informed the parties that

as of May 21, 2007, the court would take the motions for reconsideration under submission, and

would thereafter issue its decision

On May 17, 2007, Attorney David F. Brown filed a declaration in support of Plaintiff

Sharon Hamilton’s motion for an enlargement of time to file a reply brief. On May 17, 2007,

Plaintiff Terry Hamilton filed a declaration in support of a request to file a reply after the hearing

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 618 Filed 05/23/07 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

 At the time the motions for reconsideration were filed, Attorney Anthony Capozzi still 1

represented Plaintiffs, including the Corporate Plaintiffs.

2

or continue the hearing to allow Plaintiffs time to find a new attorney. On May 21, 2007,

Defendant filed an opposition to any further continuance.

The court will disregard Plaintiffs’ May 17, 2007 filings and Defendant’s May 21, 2007

filing. The court has already granted Plaintiffs’ request to file a late reply. In the court’s order,

the court gave Plaintiffs one more day within which to file a reply than they had asked for in their

motion for more time. Thus, the court will disregard the further declarations supporting 

Plaintiffs’ motion for an enlargement of time because this motion has already been granted by the

court.

In his May 17, 2007 declaration, Plaintiff Terry Hamilton discusses issues not addressed

in Plaintiffs’ original motion for an enlargement of time. Because Plaintiffs’ May 17, 2007

filings are merely declarations supporting a previously filed motion that has already been granted,

the court does not need to address Plaintiffs’ declarations any further. The court does recognize

that in his declaration Plaintiff Terry Hamilton asks that the court allow the Corporate Plaintiffs

more time to file a reply brief and/or continue the motion because the Corporate Plaintiffs are not

currently represented by counsel, and as such, cannot appear. Had the Corporate Plaintiffs filed

a motion for reconsideration prior to the court allowing Attorney Anthony Capozzi to withdraw

as Plaintiffs’ attorney of record, the court would have some sympathy for the Corporate

Plaintiffs’ current situation. However, the Corporate Plaintiffs never filed a motion for 1

reconsideration. The only reconsideration motions that were filed on behalf of Plaintiff Terry

Hamilton, appearing pro se, and Plaintiff Sharon Hamilton, through her attorney for the purposes

of a motion for reconsideration, David F. Brown. Because no motion for reconsideration by the

Corporate Defendants is pending, it is unnecessary to determine if the Corporate Defendants need

more time to file a reply before the court rules on the underlying motions for reconsideration.

 

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 618 Filed 05/23/07 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

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ May 17, 2007 declarations and

Defendants’ May 21, 2007 opposition are DISREGARDED as moot in light of the court’s May

17, 2007 order granting Plaintiffs’ motion. The motions for reconsideration remain under

submission, and the court will issue an opinion in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 618 Filed 05/23/07 Page 3 of 3