Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03733/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03733-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Edmundson
Defendant
Orville Meaux
Plaintiff
Northwest Airlines, Inc.
Defendant
Professional Flight Attendants Association
Defendant

Document Text:

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

ORVILLE MEAUX,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.; ERIC

EDMUNDSON, individually and as an

employee of Northwest Airlines, Inc.;

PROFESSIONAL FLIGHT ATTENDANTS

ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1-20,

Inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-3733 CW

ORDER REGARDING

PLAINTIFF'S

REQUEST FOR

CLARIFICATION

AND/OR FOR LEAVE

TO FILE A MOTION

FOR

RECONSIDERATION

 Plaintiff Orville Meaux requests clarification of the Court's

July 6, 2006 order granting Defendant Eric Edmundson's motion to

dismiss and further requests leave to file a motion for

reconsideration. Defendant Edmundson opposes Plaintiff's requests,

noting that the Court's order is clear and that Plaintiff's request

for leave does not follow the dictates of Local Rule 7-9(b). 

Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court

grants Plaintiff's request in part and denies it in part.

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 87 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 4
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

The Court's order is clear, but the Court will nonetheless

respond to Plaintiff's questions. During the hearing on Defendant

Edmundson's motion to dismiss, the Court, as reported in the May

16, 2006 minute order, stated that it was inclined to grant the

motion with leave to amend. Upon further review, however, the

Court determined that Plaintiff's filing of this action violated

the bankruptcy stay and, therefore, the filing was void. The Court

found that Plaintiff's claim-splitting provided another reason to

dismiss the claims against Defendant Edmundson. The Court

dismissed the claims against Defendant Edmundson without leave to

amend. The final line of the Court's order states, "This dismissal

is without prejudice to Plaintiff's pursuit of his claims in the

bankruptcy litigation or in the first action." Based on this final

line, Plaintiff seeks clarification of five questions. The Court

will answer Plaintiff's questions:

Yes, Plaintiff may seek leave to amend the original action to

include causes of action against Defendant Edmundson.

Yes, Plaintiff should have timely moved to amend his original

complaint if he wanted to sue Defendant Edmundson.

No, the Court is not stating that, as a matter of law, the

automatic stay provisions of section 362 apply to Defendant

Edmundson.

No, the Court is not stating that, as a matter of law,

Defendant Edmundson is entitled to indemnity from Defendant

Northwest Airlines, Inc.

No, the Court is not stating that Defendant Edmundson, who is

a non-debter, currently has standing to claim the protection of the

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 87 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 4
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 3

bankruptcy court under section 362 for the protection of his

personal assets. 

Plaintiff's request that the Court schedule a conference call

to provide clarification on these issues is denied. A conference

call is unnecessary.

Plaintiff requests an order from the Court stating that he

may, if necessary, file a motion for reconsideration after

clarification of the Court's order, if any. As Defendant Edmundson

notes, Plaintiff fails to satisfy any requirement listed by Civil

Local Rule 7-9(b). He does not show that a material difference in

fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court and

that he was unaware of such fact or law. He does not show the

emergence of new material facts or a change in law occurring after

the Court's order. Nor does he show a manifest failure by the

Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments

which were presented to the Court. Because Plaintiff's request for

leave to file a motion for reconsideration is not in accordance

with Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), it is denied without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's

Request for Clarification of the Court's Order Granting Defendant

Edmundson's Motion to Dismiss and Request for Leave to File a

Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 62) IN PART and DENIES IT IN

PART. The Court clarified its order and answered the questions

Plaintiff asked. But Plaintiff's request for a conference call is

DENIED with prejudice and his request for leave to file a motion 

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 87 Filed 09/11/06 Page 3 of 4
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 4

for reconsideration is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/11/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 87 Filed 09/11/06 Page 4 of 4