Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01367/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01367-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 896
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Arbitration
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL MAY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMGEN, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 12-01367 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

After exhausting the appellate review process, pro se plaintiff moves for leave to file a

motion for reconsideration in this employment action. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s

motion is DENIED.

* * *

Pro se plaintiff Samuel May worked for defendant Amgen, Inc., in Colorado from 2002

through his resignation in 2006. In April 2007, May sued Amgen in California state court but

voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit six months later. May then demanded arbitration in Denver.

Following a three-day hearing, during which the parties examined ten witnesses, the

arbitrator issued a final award ruling against plaintiff, who was represented by counsel at the

time. When Amgen filed a motion in Colorado state court to confirm the arbitration award,

May responded with a petition to our court of appeals, who rejected the petition for lack of

jurisdiction. The Colorado state court confirmed the arbitration award.

May came to this federal district court, seeking again to vacate or modify the arbitration

award. Our June 2012 order spanned eleven pages and explained the reasons for denying May’s

Case 3:12-cv-01367-WHA Document 53 Filed 05/13/15 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

petition. Our court of appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court denied May’s petition

for certiorari and denied his petition for rehearing.

Now, almost three years after entry of our June 2012 order, May moves for leave to file a

motion for reconsideration. His motion invoking FRCP 60(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) is

DENIED.

First, May’s motion is untimely. FRCP 60(c)(1) states that a motion under FRCP 60(b)

must be made within a “reasonable time.” When the motion invokes FRCP 60(b)(1) through (3),

it must be brought “no more than a year” after entry of the order. Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) states

that a party may move for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of any interlocutory order

before entry of judgment. Here, May’s motion comes nearly three years after entry of the

June 2012 order. 

Second, none of the reasons stated in FRCP 60(b) warrants granting May’s motion. 

To the extent his motion is intelligible, May mainly argues that a “material difference” in law

exists. This argument fails because all of the decisions cited by May are decisions that pre-date

our June 2012 order, are non-binding or non-precedential decisions, and/or are decisions with no

relevance whatsoever to this closed action.

Accordingly, May’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

The file remains CLOSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:12-cv-01367-WHA Document 53 Filed 05/13/15 Page 2 of 2