Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03272/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03272-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

1

Docket Nos. 244 and 249. 

2

C05-4087, Docket No. 199, Filed August 15, 2006.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AZADPOUR,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. ET AL,

Defendants. /

No. C06-3272 MJJ

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

MOTIONS 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Mostafa Aram Azadpour’s Motion for Leave to File

Motions.1

 On August 15, 2006, this Court ordered Plaintiff to seek leave of Court before filing any

further motions.2

 The order was in response to the voluminous number of motions and notices of

motions filed by Plaintiff, many of which lacked grounding in applicable law and the adjudication of

which resulted in the expenditure of considerable judicial resources. 

In the present motions, Plaintiff requests permission to file further motions in this Court.

Specifically, Plaintiff requests to file the following motions: “Motion to Re-consider [sic] Denial of

Leave to Move for a Summary Judgment”; “Motion to Re-consider [sic] Denial for Leave to Move

for a Default Judgment”; “ Motion for Judgment on Pleadings”; “Motion for Sanction [sic] Against

Defendants for Frivolous Motion to Dismiss”; and “Motion for Leave to File Supplemental

Case 3:06-cv-03272-MJJ Document 255 Filed 07/19/07 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

Opposition to Oppose Defendants’ Reply Asserting New Argument in Support of Dismissing

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.” 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s proposed motions and finds that the motions similarly

lack grounding in applicable law and the adjudication of which would result in the unnecessary

expenditure of judicial resources. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July ___, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03272-MJJ Document 255 Filed 07/19/07 Page 2 of 2