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.

Winters v. Jordan

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


January 15, 2010

BRENT WINTERS, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
DELORES JORDAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

This case, in which plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Currently scheduled for hearing on January 20, 2010 are defendant Ford's motion to strike and/or dismiss plaintiffs' third amended complaint, Dckt. No. 69; defendant Logsdon's motion to strike and/or dismiss plaintiffs' third amended complaint, Dckt. No. 72; defendants Burrow Security Forces and Ryan Arbuckle's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' third amended complaint and/or for a more definite statement, Dckt. No. 79; defendant Virginia Armstrong's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' third amended complaint and/or for a more definite statement, Dckt. No. 84; and defendant Michael Armstrong's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' third amended complaint and/or for a more definite statement, Dckt. No. 85.

On January 13, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion to appear at the January 20, 2010 hearing telephonically, or for the court "to rely on their filings without appearance and argument." Dckt. No. 101. In light of plaintiffs' request, and because the undersigned finds that oral argument would not be of material assistance to the court, the January 20, 2010 hearing will be vacated and the matters submitted on the record and briefs. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).

Additionally, on January 13, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion to remove attorney David Silber for a conflict of interest, and a motion to strike the filings submitted by Mr. Silber, including defendant Virginia Armstrong and defendant Michael Armstrong's motions to dismiss, Dckt. Nos. 84 and 85. Dckt. No. 100. Plaintiffs' motion does not comply with Local Rule 230(b) or 230(e). Therefore, the motion will be denied without prejudice. If plaintiffs wish to re-file the motion, they shall comply with Local Rule 230(b).

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs' motion to vacate the January 20, 2010 hearing, Dckt. No. 101, is granted;

2. The January 20, 2010 hearings on the pending motions to strike, dismiss, and/or for more definite statement are vacated; and

3. Plaintiffs' motion to remove attorney David Silber, Dckt. No. 100, is denied without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 230.

SO ORDERED.

20100115

© 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.