Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02454/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02454-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JERRY GILLIAM, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MA ELIZA CANGGAS GILLIAM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-02454-MCE-AC 

ORDER 

On June 1, 2015, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend. ECF 

Nos. 49, 50. On September 8, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment under 

Federal Rule 60, as well as a motion for leave to amend his complaint. ECF Nos. 51, 52. On 

October 7, 2015, the presiding district judge referred this matter to the undersigned and vacated 

the hearing scheduled for plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment. ECF No. 56. The next day, 

plaintiff filed a request to appear telephonically at the vacated hearing. ECF No. 57. On October 

15, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended motion for relief from judgment and amended motion for 

leave to amend, noticed for hearing before the undersigned on November 18, 2015. ECF No. 58. 

On the same day, plaintiff filed a proposed order granting a motion to appear telephonically at the 

November 18, 2015, hearing, even though no such request had yet been filed. ECF No. 59. On 

October 19, 2015, defendant J. Christina Alvarez Aulakh, filed an opposition to plaintiff’s request 

to appear telephonically, arguing that his motion for relief from judgment was filed in bad faith, 

Case 2:14-cv-02454-MCE-AC Document 61 Filed 10/22/15 Page 1 of 2
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

and that his claims are frivolous. ECF No. 60. 

Although plaintiff’s October 15, 2015, proposed order does not include an actual request 

to appear telephonically at the hearing before the undersigned, it is clear he intended such a 

request. Accordingly, the court will construe plaintiff’s proposed order as a request to appear 

telephonically at the court’s November 18, 2015, hearing. The court will grant plaintiff’s request, 

as he lives in Kansas City, Missouri, and has limited income. See ECF No. 57. Defendant 

Aulakh’s argument that plaintiff’s request should be denied because his underlying motion for 

relief from judgment is frivolous is unconvincing. The merits of plaintiff’s underlying motion are 

irrelevant to his request to appear telephonically. 

Accordingly, good cause appearing, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to appear telephonically, ECF No. 59, is GRANTED; and 

2. Plaintiff’s earlier request to appear telephonically, ECF No. 57, is DENIED as moot. 

3. Plaintiff is instructed to contact the courtroom deputy, Valerie Callen, at (916) 930-

4199 prior to the hearing and advise the court of the telephone number at which he can be 

reached. 

DATED: October 20, 2015 

Case 2:14-cv-02454-MCE-AC Document 61 Filed 10/22/15 Page 2 of 2