Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03293/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03293-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

C-09-3293 ORDER DENYING LEAVE Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Lucky L. Meyer,

Plaintiff,

v.

Target Corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 09-3293 JL

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

I. Introduction

The Court received Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration,

under Civil Local Rule 7-9. Plaintiff also invoked Civil Local Rule 72, but that rule applies

only to matters referred to a magistrate judge by the district court, under 28 U.S.C. §636(b),

not matters decided with the consent of the parties, under 28 U.S.C. §636(c). In this case,

all parties have consented to this Court’s jurisdiction.

Civil Local Rule 7-9 provides:

Civil Local Rule 7-9 (Motion for Reconsideration) provides: 

 (a) Leave of Court Requirement. Before the entry of a judgment 

adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case,

any party may make a motion before a Judge requesting that the Judge grant the

party leave to file a motion for reconsideration of any interlocutory order made by

that Judge on any ground set forth in Civil L.R. 7-9 (b). No party may notice a motion

for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion. 

Case 3:09-cv-03293-JL Document 50 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 5
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

C-09-3293 ORDER DENYING LEAVE Page 2 of 5

 (b) Form and Content of Motion for Leave. A motion for leave to 

file a motion for reconsideration must be made in accordance 

with the requirements of Civil L.R. 7-9. The moving party must 

specifically 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 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.

Plaintiff complains of a number of actions by the Court:

1) Order for Plaintiff to appear for deposition by defense counsel within thirty

days;

2) Order for Plaintiff to submit to Independent Medical Examination by

orthopedic surgeon Dr. Charles di Raimondo, also within thirty days of the

Court’s order.

Both events are to take place at a mutually convenient day and time. 

Plaintiff also complains that the Court has not dealt to her satisfaction with her

complaints about her previous attorney, nor has the Court imposed “any adverse

consequences” on that attorney for the offenses of which Plaintiff accused her. Plaintiff

asserts that she has a right to counsel and that she was disadvantaged and deprived of her

right to a fair hearing by not having an attorney to represent her. She re-raises the same

arguments she previously made with respect to her former attorney.

Plaintiff also seeks to withdraw her consent to this Court’s jurisdiction, saying that

the consent form was signed by one of her former attorneys and she doesn’t remember

anyone discussing it with her.

II. Analysis

A. Reconsideration of orders

Case 3:09-cv-03293-JL Document 50 Filed 04/07/10 Page 2 of 5
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

C-09-3293 ORDER DENYING LEAVE Page 3 of 5

Plaintiff has raised no new arguments, either legal or factual, in her dispute about

her deposition and her medical examination. Neither has she shown that the Court has

committed manifest legal or factual errors in its rulings. She is the plaintiff in this case, she

must eventually submit to her deposition, whether or not she has an attorney. Plaintiff

alleges that, due to a fall on Defendant's premises, she suffered and continues to suffer

from injuries to her back, neck, hip, wrist, and elbow, all of which cause permanent

disabling pain. Therefore, the Court found ample justification for ordering that she make

herself available for examination by Dr. Di Raimondo, an orthopedic surgeon.

Accordingly, the orders for Plaintiff to appear for her deposition and for the medical

examination were not the result of manifest legal or factual error, nor did Plaintiff present

any new evidence that would justify a change in the Court’s decision. Therefore, Plaintiff’s

request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s orders for here to appear

for her deposition and for a medical examination is denied.

B. Plaintiff must proceed, even without an attorney

Plaintiff also fails to present any new evidence or any basis for concluding that the

Court erred in permitting her previous attorney to withdraw without “adverse

consequences.” This is Plaintiffs’ second federal lawsuit in six years, her first having been

filed in 2003 and dismissed January 11, 2007, following summary judgment for defendant,

her former employer. This case was filed in state court April 20, 2009, almost one year ago,

and removed to federal court by Defendant July 17, 2009. Plaintiff is familiar with the court

system and capable of representing herself, at least in the preliminary stages. The Court

left open the possibility of appointment of counsel, should the case proceed beyond

summary judgment.

There is no right to counsel in a civil lawsuit. The Sixth Amendment provides for the

right to effective assistance of counsel but it applies only for criminal cases, not civil cases. 

Pokuta v. TWA, 191 F.3d 834, 840 (7th Cir.1999) (“[T]he well-settled general rule is that

there is no constitutional or statutory right to the effective assistance of counsel in civil

cases.”); United States v. Bodre, 948 F.2d 28, 37 n. 7 (1st Cir.1991) (“It is well-settled that

Case 3:09-cv-03293-JL Document 50 Filed 04/07/10 Page 3 of 5
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

C-09-3293 ORDER DENYING LEAVE Page 4 of 5

the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel applies only to critical stages

of criminal prosecutions.”); see also Anderson v. Sheppard, 856 F.2d 741, 747-48 (6th

Cir.1988) (“ ‘A criminal defendant's right to counsel arises out of the sixth amendment, and

includes the right to appointed counsel when necessary.’ In contrast, ‘[a] civil litigant's right

to retain counsel is rooted in fifth amendment notions of due process; the right does not

require the government to provide lawyers for litigants in civil matters.’ ”). 

The Court found no wrongdoing by Plaintiff’s former counsel, and Plaintiff has no

right to be represented in this civil action. Therefore, there is no basis for reversing either

the decision to permit her counsel to withdraw or declining to appoint counsel at this time. 

III. Conclusion re leave to file a motion for reconsideration

Plaintiff fails to satisfy the requirements of Civil Local Rule 7-9 in her objections to

this Court’s ordering her to appear for deposition and for a medical examination. Plaintiff is

also not entitled to appointment of counsel, and her former counsel was allowed to

withdraw for good cause. For all the above reasons, Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a

motion for reconsideration is denied.

IV. Consent to this Court’s jurisdiction

Under 28 U.S.C. §636(c), a magistrate judge may have jurisdiction over all

proceedings, including trial, in a civil action, with the consent of the parties. In this case

there are in the court docket two consent forms filed on Plaintiff’s behalf. The first was

signed by Plaintiff’s attorney Thomas Burch and e-filed by the courtroom deputy. The

second was also signed by Thomas Burch and e-filed by another of Plaintiff’s attorneys,

Stephen O’Neill.

A party’s consent is inferred from the consent of an attorney representing the party.

A district court has held that even without a notice of consent, a plaintiff in a civil case had

voluntarily consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge when the attorneys for both

sides had stated in a joint meet and confer statement that they did not object to the

magistrate judge’s jurisdiction for all purposes and the case proceeded through trial.

Warren v. Thompson, 224 F.R.D. 236 (D.D.C. 2004), citing Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580

Case 3:09-cv-03293-JL Document 50 Filed 04/07/10 Page 4 of 5
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

C-09-3293 ORDER DENYING LEAVE Page 5 of 5

(2003). Nor may Plaintiff withdraw her consent. Withdrawal of consent in civil cases is not

permitted except in extraordinary circumstances, Fellman v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 735

F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir. 1984) see also Carter v. Sea Land Services, Inc., 816 F.2d 1018, 1020

(5th Cir. 1987) (court would not "read into the statute a rule that would allow a party to

express conditional consent . . . thereby obtaining what amounts to a free shot at a

favorable outcome or a veto of an unfavorable outcome.") This view was adopted by the

Ninth Circuit in Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993). Factors to consider include

the burdens and costs to litigants, and whether consent was voluntary and uncoerced. 

Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F.2d 537, 543 (9th

Cir. 1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 824 (1984). 

Plaintiff does not present any evidence that her consent was coerced or otherwise

involuntary, other than that she doesn’t remember her attorney discussing it with her before

he signed the consent form on her behalf, as he was entitled to do. Dissatisfaction with

some of the Court’s rulings is not grounds for withdrawal of consent and there is no

evidence of any extraordinary circumstances which would warrant such withdrawal. In

addition, switching judges at this late date, after the case has been pending for almost one

year, would be prejudicial to Defendants and not in the interests of justice. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to withdraw her consent to this Court’s jurisdiction is

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 7, 2010

__________________________________

 James Larson

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CASES\CIVIL\09-3293\Order denying reconsideration.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-03293-JL Document 50 Filed 04/07/10 Page 5 of 5