SHAPIRO v. LUNDAHL

Case No. 16-cv-06444-MEJ.

LAWRENCE SHAPIRO, Plaintiff, v. ERIC LUNDAHL, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Nature of Suit: 310 Airplane
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Lawrence Shapiro, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Vance Nudelman , Law Office of Michael Nudelman.

Lawrence Shapiro, Plaintiff, represented by Emil John Vodonick , The Vodonick Lawfirm.

Eric Lundahl, Defendant, represented by Peter Michael Hart , LeClairRyan, LLP & Felicia Patricia Jafferies , LeClairRyan.


ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 39

MARIA-ELENA JAMES, Magistrate Judge.

On July 7, 2017, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend. See Order, Dkt. No. 38. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9, Plaintiff requests leave to file a motion for reconsideration of that Order. See Mot., Dkt. No. 39.1

In his Motion, Plaintiff argues it is "apparent that the Court did not consider the [Extension of Admiralty Act (`EAA')]." Mot. at 3. The Court did not specifically discuss the EAA, which was enacted in 1948. Instead, the Court analyzed authorities that interpreted and applied the EAA, including cases Plaintiff cited in his Opposition, such as Lu Junhong v. Boeing Co., 792 F.3d 805, 816 (7th Cir. 2015) and Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 532-34 (1995). See Order at 6-7 (specifically noting the Grubart Court relied on the Extension of Admiralty Act to find admiralty jurisdiction existed). The Court found Plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to show admiralty jurisdiction applied under the standards set forth in those cases, standards explicitly based on the EAA. See id. Plaintiff's request for leave thus is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Plaintiff noticed his Motion to be heard on August 17, 2017; however, unless otherwise ordered, no hearings are held concerning motions for leave to file a motion to reconsider. See Civil L.R. 7-9(d).

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases