Rothschild

Rothschild v. Gildred

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 6, 20243:23-cv-02105California1,195 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MAYER AMSCHEL ROTHSCHILD, Case No. 23-cv-02105-LJC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ADD

v. ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT AND

MOTION TO BIFUCRATE

STEPHANIE ANN GILDRED, et al., Re: ECF Nos. 17, 26 Defendants.

12 Pending before the Court are two motions from Plaintiff Mayer Amschel Rothschild, who is unrepresented. One is a Motion to Add Additional Defendant1 (ECF No. 17) and the other is a Motion to Bifurcate2 (ECF No. 26). The time for filing a response or opposition has passed. For the reasons explained below, both motions are hereby DENIED. I. MOTION TO ADD ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT On November 17, 2023, Mr. Rothschild filed a Motion to Add Additional Defendant which requests leave to join Stephen Wagstaffe, District Attorney for San Mateo County, as a defendant and assert federal claims against him for violation of Mr. Rothschild’s federal constitutional rights. ECF No. 17. At no point does Mr. Rothschild contend that Mr. Wagstaffe …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.