Hammett

Hammett v. Sherman

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaOctober 16, 20203:19-cv-00605California569 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 LAURA LYNN HAMMETT, Case No.: 19-CV-605 TWR (LL)

Plaintiff, ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION, AND

MARY E. SHERMAN, et al., (2) DENYING AS MOOT Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION

FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME

16 (ECF Nos. 184, 185)

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Laura Lynn Hammett’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying as Moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Disqualification of the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino (“Reconsideration Mot.,” ECF No. 154) and Ex Parte Motion for Order Shortening Time (“Ex Parte Mot.,” ECF No. 185). Because Plaintiff had sought the disqualification of Judge Sammartino, (see ECF No. 153), her request was mooted by the transfer of this action to the undersigned. See, e.g., Shahin v. Darling, 606 F. Supp. 2d 525, 545 (D. Del.) (denying as moot motion for recusal when case was subsequently reassigned to another judge), aff’d, 350 F.…

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.