Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05711/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05711-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

Case No. C 06-05711 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

(JFLC3)

**Filed 11/19/2007** 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

D. LIN NGUYEN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

PHUC DIN DO,

 Defendant.

Case Number C 06-05711 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff D. Lin Nguyen (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action on September 19, 2006

alleging attorney malpractice. On September 11, 2007, Defendant Phuc Din Do (“Defendant”)

filed a motion for summary judgment. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was noticed

for a hearing on October 12, 2007. Neither party appeared. Accordingly, the Court took the

motion under submission without oral argument. On October 12, 2007, the Court granted

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment in favor of Defendant. 

Following entry of final judgment, Plaintiff continues to file documents with the Court

including:

1. A “Declaration of Nolo Pedestrian” filed October 19, 2007;

2. An “Affidavit” (as named by the Court) filed October 22, 2007;

Case 5:06-cv-05711-JF Document 60 Filed 11/19/07 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

2

Case No. C 06-05711 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

(JFLC3)

3. A “Direct Examination Outline” filed October 26, 2007;

3. A “Motion for Summary Judgment” filed October 29, 2007;

4. A “Request for Admission” filed October 30, 2007;

5. A “Request for Order” filed November 6, 2007;

6. A “Request for Renewal of Judgment” filed November 7, 2007;

7. A “Letter and Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment” filed 

November 7, 2007; and

8. A “Motion in Limine” filed November 13, 2007.

Because this Court construes filings of a pro se Plaintiff liberally, Plaintiff’s numorous

filings will be treated as a request for reconsideration even though the filings are not labeled as

such. However, there is no legal or cognizable basis upon which Plaintiff’s request may be

granted. Plaintiff has not alleged any additional cognizable new facts that would alter this Court’s

conclusion that Plaintiff’s claim is time-barred. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for

reconsideration is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: October 19, 2007 __________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-05711-JF Document 60 Filed 11/19/07 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

Case No. C 06-05711 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

(JFLC3)

Copies of Order mailed to:

D. Lin Mguyen

2174 Diana Place

San Jose, CA 95116

Phuc Dinh Do phucdinhdo@gmail.com

Case 5:06-cv-05711-JF Document 60 Filed 11/19/07 Page 3 of 3