Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06887/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06887-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEPI SCHAFLER,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-6887 PJH

No. C 06-5908 PJH

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

MARINE MIDLAND BANK (HSBC), et al., FOR LEAVE TO FILE REQUEST

FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

PEPI SCHAFLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT D. MILLER, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Request for Rehearing or

Reconsideration, filed January 19, 2007. Plaintiff makes her motion pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 7-9, which governs the filing of motions for reconsideration, and expressly requires

that a party obtain leave of court before filing such a motion. Plaintiff appears to seek

reconsideration of the court’s January 17 hearing on multiple defendants’ motions to

dismiss. 

Plaintiff’s motion is hereby DENIED. The local rule states that a party must seek

leave of court to file a motion for reconsidertion “of any interlocutory order made by” the

court. See Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). Plaintiff, however, cannot base her motion on any such

interlocutory order, for the court has not yet issued an order with respect to the January 17

hearing. As the minute order filed in both actions before the court clearly states, all matters

Case 4:06-cv-06887-PJH Document 21 Filed 01/24/07 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

were taken under submission. As such, there is no interlocutory order upon which plaintiff’s

motion can rest, making the instant motion premature pursuant to local rule 7-9.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-06887-PJH Document 21 Filed 01/24/07 Page 2 of 2