The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' BONNIE LOHMANN MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
This matter came to be heard before the Court, the Hon. John A. Mendez presiding, on June 3, 2009, as set by the Notice of the Clerk dated May 18, 2009 (Docket No. 23).
Appearing for the parties was: Abraham Goldman for the plaintiffs; Huib Stroomberg pro per; Traci Southwell pro per and C. Anthony Hughes for defendant Stroomwell Investment Group, Inc.
Before proceeding with the various motions before the Court, the Court enquired of Mr. Stroomberg and Ms. Southwell on the record to confirm that they indeed were representing themselves and were aware of their duties and obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Mr. Stroomberg and Ms. Southwell confirmed in open Court they represented themselves and that they understood their duty to follow the F.R.C.P. and the Local Rules.
The Court then proceeded to consider the pending motions and heard arguments from all parties on the pending motions.
The motions before the Court filed by defendants comprised: 1) a purported "Motion for Demurrer" filed by Huib Stroomberg (Docket No. 9 and supporting exhibits), 2) a Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs' Attorney filed by Huib Stroomberg (Docket No. 10), 3) a purported "Motion for Demurrer" and exhibits, filed by Traci Southwell (Docket No. 11), 4) a Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs' Attorney filed by Traci Southwell (Docket No. 12), 5) a purported "Motion for Demurrer" filed by defendant Stroomwell, plus exhibits (Docket No. 13) (Filed in Non Compliance), 6) a Motion to Dismiss for Nonjoinder under F.R.C.P. 21 and supporting documents filed by Stroomwell (Docket No. 14).*fn1
Also before the Court was an Opposition by plaintiffs to Stroomwell's Motion to Dismiss for Non-Joinder under FRCP 21 (Docket No. 16), Objections by plaintiffs to defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Nonjoinder (Docket No. 17), an Opposition by plaintiffs to the two "Motions for Demurrer" by defendants Stroomberg and Southwell (Docket No. 18), plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objections to the exhibits and declarations purportedly supporting the "Demurrers" (Docket No. 19), plaintiffs' Opposition to defendants' Motion to Disqualify and supporting Declarations and Exhibits (Docket No. 20) and plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objections to defendants' Motion to Disqualify (Docket No. 21).
Also before the Court was defendants' combined Reply in Support of its "Motion for Demurrer" (Docket No. 24), defendant Stroomwell's Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 21 and a new declaration (Docket No. 25), Defendants' combined Reply to Response to Motion to Disqualify*fn2 (Docket No. 26) and Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Disqualify (Docket No. 27).
In addition before the Court in response to defendants' Replies, Memorandum and new exhibits were Plaintiffs' further Evidentiary Objections and Motion to Strike from the records of the Court Exhibit G of defendants' Reply (Docket No. 28, pages 34-38), and plaintiffs' Objections to Defendants' Reply and Supporting Declarations and Exhibits relating to Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Disqualify (Docket No. 32).
After considering the entire record, including the original Complaint (Docket No. 1), and arguments of counsel and the parties, the Court ruled on the above matters as follows:
The format of defendants' moving papers did not conform to the requirements of the Local Rules.
The Court considered and ruled on the several Evidentiary Objections and the Motion to Strike filed by plaintiffs (Dockets No. 19, 20, 21, 28 and 32). The Court found Plaintiffs' Objections to be well taken and granted each objection filed by plaintiffs, and the Motion to Strike Exhibit G from plaintiffs' Reply (Docket No. 26 at pages 34-38). The objections were sustained on the grounds stated by plaintiffs in the Objections. Regarding Exhibit G (Docket No. 26 at pages 34-38), the Court further found Exhibit G was an attorney-client privileged document between two non-parties to this case, and it had no relevance to any of the issues before the Court.
The Court gave defendant Stroomwell's attorney and the individual defendants full opportunity to attempt to explain the relevance of Exhibit G. No sufficient explanation being given, the objections to Exhibit G were sustained, the Motion to Strike Exhibit G was ...