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.

Contreras v. Lulley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 23, 2010

ROCKY M. CONTRERAS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHARLES LULLEY; LIBERTY EAGLE, VESSEL; LIBERTY MARITIME CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge United States District Court

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

On February 18, 2010, Plaintiff Rocky M. Contreras filed a motion for sanctions against Defendants, alleging that counsel for Defendants violated various Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Court orders. (Doc. No. 55.) Plaintiff indicated on his brief that a telephonic hearing on his motion is scheduled for March 18, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. (Id.) Plaintiff did not obtain the hearing date for his motion from the District Judge's law clerk pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(b). The Court submits the motion on the papers and vacates the March 18, 2010 hearing date. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for sanctions.

On January 14, 2009, Plaintiff Rocky M. Contreras, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in this Court against Defendants Charles Lulley, Liberty Eagle, and Liberty Maritime Corporation. (Doc. No. 1.) On August 5, 2009, Defendant Liberty Maritime Corporation filed its answer. (Doc. No. 15.) On November 2, 2009, Defendant Liberty Maritime Corporation filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. No. 29.) On January 29, 2010, Defendant Liberty Maritime Corporation filed its Rule 26(f) report, indicating that Plaintiff's three cases, Contreras v. Mahan et al., 09-CV-19-H (WMC); Contreras v. Lulley et al., 09-CV-53-H (AJB); and Contreras v. Liberty Maritime Corporation et al., 09-CV-231-H (AJB) should be consolidated or should proceed on the same trial schedule. (Doc. No. 49.) On February 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue and a motion for change of venue. (Doc. No. 53.) Plaintiff indicated on his brief that a hearing on his motion is scheduled for March 18, 2010. (Id.) Plaintiff did not obtain the hearing date for his motion from the District Judge's law clerk pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(b). The Court has requested briefing from Defendants. (Doc. No. 54.)

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed multiple cases in this Court: Contreras v. McKenna et al., 08-CV-44-BEN (WMC); Contreras v. Brudzinski, 08-CV-1154-JLS (POR); Contreras v. Vazquez, 08-CV-1362-BEN (WMC); Contreras v. Mahan et al., 09-CV-19-H (WMC); Contreras v. Lulley et al., 09-CV-53-H (AJB); Contreras v. Liberty Maritime Corporation et al., 09-CV-231-H (AJB); Contreras v. Vazquez et al., 09-CV-1267-IEG (CAB); and Contreras v. Vasquez et al., 09-CV-2359-IEG (CAB).

On February 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed this motion for sanctions. (Doc. No. 55.)

Although Plaintiff cites 18 U.S.C. § 401, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b), and Local Civil Rules 83.3, 83.4 and 83.5, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions lacks merit. Defendants may seek to consolidate all or part of Plaintiff's cases under the law, and the Court has authority to decide the proper order for discovery, case management, and ruling on the motions before it. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100223

© 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.