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.

Mays v. U.S. Bank National Ass.

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


December 7, 2009

DONNA LYNN MAYS AND RONALD MAYS, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASS. AS TRUSTEE FOR THE SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING AND RESIDENTIAL FINANCIAL MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-AB3, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anthony W. Ishii Chief United States District Judge

ORDER STRIKING DECLARATION AND REQUIRING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING (Doc. No. 17)

On December 2, 2009, the Court issued an order the provided in part: Plaintiffs are to clarify their position regarding Tye Declaration Exhibit B. Specifically, they are to expressly state whether they challenge the authenticity of the documents that comprise Tye Declaration Exhibit B. Plaintiffs are also to clarify whether their claim remains viable since a date of August 22, 2006, is plainly written on the document entitled "Notice of Right to Cancel."

Court's Docket Doc. No. 16. The Court then ordered Plaintiffs to "file their clarifying brief (as described above) no later than 1:00 p.m. on December 7, 2009." Id.

Plaintiffs did not file is a brief that expressly states whether they challenge the authenticity of Tye Exhibit B and that clarified whether they believe their claims remain viable in light of Exhibit B. Instead, on December 7, 2009, Plaintiffs timely filed a declaration from Plaintiff Ronald Mays. Mays's declaration essentially states that he does not recall seeing a date written on the "Notice of Right to Cancel." See id. at Doc. No. 17.

Plaintiffs have failed to obey the Court's order. The declaration is accompanied by no briefing or express argumentation. For example, there is no express assertion (and accompanying explanation) that Exhibit B is unauthentic, and Plaintiffs cite no law regarding whether the substance of Ronald Mays's declaration is sufficient to challenge authenticity.*fn1

Instead, Plaintiffs leave it for the Court to construe the Declaration and make the arguments. The Court will not do this.

The Court will strike the Declaration of Ronald Mays because it does not comply with the Court's December 2, 2009, order. Plaintiffs will be given another opportunity to comply with the Court's order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Declaration of Ronald Mays (Document No. 17 in the Court's Docket) is STRICKEN for non-compliance with the Court's December 2, 2009, order; and

2. Plaintiffs are to file a brief*fn2 by December 10, 2009, that complies with the analysis of this order and the Court's December 2, 2009, order.

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.