Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06634/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06634-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARON BOWER, )

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

FOSTER FARMS DAIRY, )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-04-6634 REC/DLB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 14)

On January 17, 2006, plaintiff, proceeding in pro per, filed

a "Petition for Reconsideration" in which he requests that the

court vacate its order granting plaintiff's motion for voluntary

dismissal of this action, which order was entered on February 25,

2005.

The court hereby denies plaintiff’s petition. From the

court’s review of the filings in this action, it appears that

this court may not have subject matter jurisdiction over any

claims that can be gleaned from the Complaint and Amended

Case 1:04-cv-06634-REC-DLB Document 15 Filed 01/23/06 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

The court is expressing no opinion on the timeliness of a new 1

action or the merits of any claim alleged therein.

2

Complaint. It appears that plaintiff’s claims, if any, arise out

of an alleged breach of a settlement agreement between plaintiff,

other individuals and defendant and out of allegations that

plaintiff’s attorney breached professional and fiduciary

obligations in connection with the settlement agreement. Because

it is apparent from the filings in this action that all parties

are citizens of California, there is no diversity jurisdiction. 

The filings in this action are very unclear but it does not

appear that plaintiff is alleging subject matter jurisdiction on

the basis of a federal question pertaining to any action by

defendant against him. Furthermore, it appears that plaintiff

brought this action on behalf of two other individuals, one of

whom advised the court that he did not authorize plaintiff to act

on his behalf and both of whom were severed from this action

prior to plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of the action. Given

plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of this action almost a year ago

and given the unclear status of the pleadings filed in this

action as they pertain to plaintiff, the court will not vacate

the order voluntarily dismissing this action. If plaintiff

intends to proceed with claims against defendant, plaintiff must

file a new action, clearly setting forth the basis of this

court’s subject matter jurisdiction and the factual basis of any

claims with respect to which he seeks relief.1

ACCORDINGLY:

Case 1:04-cv-06634-REC-DLB Document 15 Filed 01/23/06 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

3

1. Plaintiff’s Petition for Reconsideration is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06634-REC-DLB Document 15 Filed 01/23/06 Page 3 of 3