Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Noland v. Pelletier

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 14, 2009

MILTON CHARLES VAN NOLAND, AND JOY GARNER, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
ERIC S. PELLETIER AND "GRRR! LIMITED," DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

This case came before the court on September 11, 2009, for hearing on plaintiffs' motion for sanctions. (Doc. No. 17.) Plaintiffs Milton Charles Van Nolan and Joy Garner, proceeding pro se, appeared on their own behalf. James Arguellas, Esq. appeared telephonically for defendants Eric S. Pelletier and Grrr! Limited. For the reasons set forth on the record at the hearing, plaintiffs' motion for sanctions was denied without prejudice to renewal following resolution of plaintiffs' pending motion for remand if appropriate.*fn1

In addition, plaintiffs' motion for contempt (Doc. No. 23) was not properly noticed for hearing under Local Rule 78-230 and is therefore denied without prejudice.

Plaintiffs have filed two motions seeking the recusal of the undersigned. (Doc. Nos 35 & 37.) At the hearing on September 11, 2009, plaintiffs indicated that one of those two motions was to be heard by the undersigned. A review of the court's docket, however, reveals that both motions were directed to the assigned district judge and that neither was properly noticed in compliance with Local Rule 78-230. Accordingly, the undersigned will not address those motions at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.