Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01317/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01317-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anlin Industries, Inc.
Counter Defendant
Paul Burgess
Counter Claimant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANLIN INDUSTRIES, INC., a California )

corporation )

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

PAUL BURGESS, )

)

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:05cv1317 DLB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Document 57)

Plaintiff Anlin Industries, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action on October 19, 2005,

alleging violations of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and various causes of

action for trademark infringement and unfair competition under Federal and State laws. 

On July 24, 2006, Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff Paul Burgess (“Defendant”) filed a

request for reconsideration of the Court’s July 21, 2006, order striking his July 12, 2006,

amended complaint and counterclaim. Defendant files the motion pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72-303(a).

As Plaintiff points out, reconsideration by the district court judge pursuant to Rule 72 is

not available in a case such as this, where the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the

Magistrate Judge. The case has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Beck for all matters and

review by a district court judge is therefore not available. Indeed, Local Rule 73-301 provides

Case 1:05-cv-01317-DLB Document 61 Filed 08/28/06 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

that wHere the parties have consented, Local Rule 72-303, upon which Defendant relies, is

inapplicable.

To the extent Defendant’s request can be construed as a request for the Magistrate Judge

to review his ruling, Defendant has not presented any new evidence to make such a request

appropriate.

Finally, by way of the Court’s August 9, 2006, order granting Plaintiff’s motion to

dismiss the counterclaims, Defendant has been granted leave to amend his counterclaims. Given

this opportunity, it appears that review of the July 21, 2006, order is unnecessary. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s request for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 28, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01317-DLB Document 61 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 2