Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04108/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04108-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 07-04108

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS 

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 11/20/2007**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MICHAEL BLOMQUIST,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL, et. al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 07-04108

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 1

RECONSIDER PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

[re: docket no. 20]

On October 26, 2007, this Court denied Plaintiff’s second amended application to

proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on November 13, 2007. 

Plaintiff has not complied with Local Rule 7-9 which requires that a plaintiff seek leave to file a

motion for reconsideration. Moreover, Plaintiff’s motion does not support leave to file for

reconsideration. Under Local Rule 7-9, a plaintiff seeking such leave must show:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law

exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory

order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the

Case 5:07-cv-04108-JF Document 21 Filed 11/20/07 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

 Plaintiff makes no argument that, acting with reasonable diligence, he could not 2

previously have discovered the facts contained in his credit report, or even that he was unaware

of these facts at the time that he filed his three prior applications. 

2

Case No. C07-04108

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS 

(JFLC1)

exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not

know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the

time of such order; or

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal

arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.

Civ. L. R. 7-9(b). Plaintiff does not identify any new material facts or dispositive legal

arguments which this Court previously failed to consider. Instead, Plaintiff for the first time

directs the Court’s attention to his credit report. The facts contained in Plaintiff’s credit report

were available at the time that he filed his three prior applications and easily could have been

discovered had Plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence. Plaintiff has a gross income of 2

$4,583.33 and assets valued at $10,000. As the Court found in its October 26 motion, it would

appear that Plaintiff is able to pay the relatively modest filing fee necessary to pursue this action. 

Accordingly, the Court will not grant Plaintiff leave to file for reconsideration. 

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to reconsider

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.

DATED: November 20, 2007.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-04108-JF Document 21 Filed 11/20/07 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. C07-04108

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS 

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Micahel Blomquist michaelblomquist@yahoo.com

Case 5:07-cv-04108-JF Document 21 Filed 11/20/07 Page 3 of 3