UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 10, 2008
DON ROSE, PLAINTIFF,
SAMUEL ABRAHAM, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Agistrate Judge
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED PROOFS OF SERVICE (DOCS. 33 through 35) INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff is proceeding with a civil action in this Court. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303. Pending before the Court are the ex parte applications of Plaintiff, filed on July 31, 2008, for 1) expedited discovery to occur before the conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 26(f) with respect to Defendants Steven Duce and Bella Robles Corporation, filed on July 31, 2008; and 2) an order requiring that the Marshal serve the summons and complaint on Defendant Samuel J. Abraham pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). Plaintiff also filed a declaration of Leonard C. Herr, Plaintiff's counsel, in support of the application for the service order.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) requires that any paper after the complaint that is required to be served must be filed, together with a certificate of service, within a reasonable time after service. Local Rule 5-135(c) expressly requires that except for ex parte matters, a paper document shall not be submitted for filing unless it is accompanied by a proof of service. Further, it expressly requires that proof of service shall be under penalty of perjury. However, the proofs of service submitted by Plaintiff with respect to the applications or motions and declarations in support thereof do not contain declarations under penalty of perjury. Accordingly, legally sufficient proof of service of the pertinent papers is lacking.
Accordingly, Plaintiff IS DIRECTED to submit to the Court no later than five court days after the date of service of this order amended proofs of service made under penalty of perjury with respect to the applications and all related papers that have been filed.
Plaintiff IS INFORMED that a failure to comply with this order will result in denial of Plaintiff's motions for failure to establish proof of service.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.