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.

Van Noland v. Pelletier

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


January 6, 2010

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

ORDER

On September 11, 2009, the undersigned heard argument on plaintiffs' August 10, 2009 motion for sanctions. By order filed September 14, 2009, the motion was denied without prejudice to renewal following resolution of plaintiffs' pending motion for remand. (See Doc. No. 42.) On September 18, 2009, the undersigned heard argument on plaintiffs' August 18, 2009 motion to remand, took the motion under submission, directed plaintiffs to refrain from submitting additional briefing pending the court's ruling on the motion to remand, and reiterated that the denial of plaintiffs' motion for sanctions was without prejudice to renewal if the court rules that defendants' removal of the case from state court was improper.

Within a week after September 18, 2009, plaintiffs filed a request for judicial notice and a memorandum in support of their submitted motion to remand. (Docs. No. 47, 49.)

A few days later, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited ruling on the motion to remand. (Doc. No. 50.) In October 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for findings on the submitted motion to remand. (Doc. No. 51.) In November 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for an order to show cause regarding remand and sanctions. (Doc. No. 52.) The November motion was improperly noticed for hearing before the district judge. Instead of re-noticing the motion as directed by the district judge, plaintiffs filed yet another motion to remand and for sanctions on December 9, 2009. (Doc. No. 54.) A lengthy memorandum of law in support of the December 9, 2009 motion was belatedly filed on December 15, 2009. (Doc. No. 56.)

All of plaintiff's post-September 18, 2009 motions are duplicative or premature, and all were filed in violation of the court's directions at the hearings on September 11 and September 18, 2009. For this reason, the motions will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs' motions filed September 29, 2009 (Doc. No. 50), October 30, 2009 (Doc. No. 51), November 30, 2009 (Doc. No. 52), and December 9, 2009 (Doc. No. 54) are denied as duplicative of pending motions, as premature, or as impermissible further briefing; and

2. Plaintiff's December 9, 2009 motion to remand and for sanctions is dropped from the court's January 15, 2010 calendar.

20100106

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



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.