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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

 

SHRUTI SHETTY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

ALPHABET, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 17-00589 SBA

 

ORDER RE: MOTION TO UPHOLD 

ORDER AND ASSOCIATE CASE 

Dkt. 17 

On February 3, 2017, Plaintiff Shruti Shetty (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant pro se 

action against more than a dozen defendants, along with a request to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. 1, 2. On February 27, 2017, the Court issued an Order Dismissing 

Plaintiff’s Complaint with Leave to Amend. Dkt. 10. The Court afforded Plaintiff until 

March 20, 2017 to file an amended complaint, and cautioned, “Failure to file an amended 

complaint by this deadline may result in the dismissal of the action in its entirety without 

further leave to amend.” Id. at 5-6. 

On March 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request for transfer of the action to San 

Francisco and permission to participate in electronic case filing (“e-filing”). Dkt. 11. 

Plaintiff also filed a separate request for reassignment of another case—No. 16-CV06012—pending before Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. and transfer of both actions to San 

Francisco. Dkt. 13. The Court separately denied both requests. Dkt. 12, 15. 
- 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 

On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of the amendment 

deadline, seeking a “few additional days” to file an amended complaint. Dkt. 14. On 

March 28, 2017, the Court issued an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Request for Extension of 

Time to Amend Complaint. Dkt. 16. The Court found Plaintiff’s justifications for an 

extension unpersuasive. Mindful of its obligation to consider less drastic alternatives to 

dismissal, however, the Court afforded Plaintiff until April 7, 2017 to file an amended 

complaint. Id. Again, the Court warned Plaintiff, “failure to file an amended complaint 

by this deadline WILL RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION IN ITS 

ENTIRELY WITHOUT FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND.” Dkt. 16 at 2 (emphasis in 

original). To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 

On April 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to “uphold order” and “associate 

case.” Dkt. 17.1

 The 18-page, single-spaced “motion” is rambling, discursive, utterly 

unintelligible, and openly hostile toward the Court and others.2

 To the extent the Court can 

ascertain or surmise the substance of Plaintiff’s requests, it addresses them, in turn, below. 

First, Plaintiff brings a motion to “associate case and defendants.” Dkt. 17 at 1; id. 

at 13. Insofar as this is a request to relate cases, the Court notes that it does not comply 

with Civil Local Rule 3-12, which governs such requests.3

 Moreover, Plaintiff merely 

identifies three cases that she wishes to “associate” without even attempting to establish 

that the actions are related. See Civil Local Rule 3-12(a) (“An action is related to another 

when: (1) [t]he actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or 

 1 The Court notes that Plaintiff filed an identical “motion” (Dkt. 22) in Case No. 16-

CV-06012-HSG. 

2 For example, as regards this Court, Plaintiff states, “Your behavior is severely 

tarnishing of all our afforded standing and court needs to STOP entertaining agents 

irrelevant to the matter.” Dkt. 17 at 9. More concerning, however, are Plaintiff’s remarks 

regarding defendants and other unnamed actors. For example, Plaintiff asserts that certain 

“public figures that are at fault” “deserves a [sic] hang to death for attempting to 

trespass our privacy and impersonate or build associations with us and if not granted 

requires us to kill them using our own channels . . . .” Dkt. 17 at 12 (emphasis in original). 

The Court admonishes Plaintiff to omit such vitriolic remarks from any future filings. 

3 For Plaintiff’s reference, the district court’s civil local rules can be found at 

http://cand.uscourts.gov/localrules/civil. 
- 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 

27 

28 

event; and (2) [i]t appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of 

labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different 

judges.”). Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s request is directed at Case Nos. 17-CV00928-JSW, 17-CV-00925-LB, and 17-CV-00933-LB, not the instant action. Dkt.17 at 1, 

13. For all of the foregoing, reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to “associate case” is DENIED. 

Second, Plaintiff brings a motion to “uphold order.” Dkt. 17 at 1. The Court cannot 

fully surmise the nature of this request. Plaintiff moves to “UPHOLD Order denying” five 

bulleted matters. Id. As a threshold matter, a request to “uphold” a prior order is a request 

to let those orders stand, not a request to revisit or reverse those orders. Even if this Court 

were to presume that (despite use of the word “uphold”) Plaintiff is actually challenging the 

Court’s prior orders, her request is still ambiguous. Although the bulleted items include 

matters that have been the subject of prior orders (i.e., “Electronic Case Filing”), they also 

include matters that no prior order has addressed (i.e., “[a]ccept current complaint with 

sealed declarations . . .” and “[c]lose jury or public access to the matter permanently . . .”). 

Id. These new requests are set forth in bulleted format without argument or support. Thus, 

insofar as Plaintiff is seeking any affirmative relief for the first time through her “motion to 

uphold order,” such relief is DENIED. 

Finally, insofar as the motion to “uphold order” constitutes a request for 

reconsideration, said request is infirm. As a threshold matter, the Court notes that the 

request does not comply with Civil Local Rule 7-9, which governs motions for 

reconsideration. Specifically, “No party may notice a motion for reconsideration without 

first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion.” Civil Local Rule 7-9(a). Plaintiff does 

not comply with this requirement and otherwise fails to make the requisite showing under 

Rule 7-9. See Civil Local Rule 7-9(b). The Court may summarily deny motions that do 

not comply with the local rules. See Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dept. of Energy 671 F.3d 

1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Denial of a motion as the result of a failure to comply with 

local rules is well within a district court’s discretion.”). Moreover, Plaintiff fails to raise, 

let alone establish, any ground for reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (providing for 
- 4 - 

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 

reconsideration upon a showing of (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 

(2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an adverse party’s fraud, misrepresentation, or other 

misconduct; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied, released or discharged judgment; or 

(6) any other reason that justifies relief). Thus, insofar as Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of 

any prior order through her “motion to uphold order,” such relief is DENIED. 

Nevertheless, the Court notes that Plaintiff refers to an “enlargement of time to 

address amendment of complaint which [she] think[s] is unnecessary . . . .” Dkt. 17 at 13. 

Although it is under no obligation to do so, the Court will afford Plaintiff an additional 

seven days to amend her complaint, with three additional days for service of the instant 

order by mail. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file her amended complaint by no later than 

Friday, April 28, 2017. The Court warns Plaintiff that failure to file an amended 

complaint by this deadline WILL RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION 

IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHOUT FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND, pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Court will NOT grant a further extension 

or entertain any other motion or request until an amended complaint is on file.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 4/18/2017 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

Senior United States District Judge