The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
IN VIOLATION OF COURT ORDERS ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENTS FILED
On February 8, 2010, the court issued an order prohibiting Richard Sinclair from representing "any of the Defendants in the within action other than himself, individually, and other than a non-individual Defendant in which he is and at all times has been the sole owner." (Doc. 362). Despite the express language of the February 2010 order, Richard Sinclair continued to file documents and make court appearances in which he purported to "specially appear" for Brandon Sinclair and others throughout 2010 and 2011.
On April 15, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the court's prior orders regarding Richard Sinclair's representation of parties other than himself in this action. (Doc. 544). The court heard Plaintiffs' motion on June 6, 2011. (Doc. 616). During the hearing, the court orally granted Plaintiffs' motion with respect to enforcing the prohibition against Richard Sinclair's representation of, inter alia, Brandon Sinclair. The court directed Brandon Sinclair to file a statement apprising the court of whether he intended to proceed in pro per. The court reserved ruling on Plaintiffs' request for sanctions and permitted Richard Sinclair to file supplemental opposition regarding the sanctions issue. Brandon Sinclair filed a Declaration stating "I...elect to represent myself" on June 13, 2011. (Doc. 624).
On June 30, 2011, Richard Sinclair filed a motion for reconsideration purporting to "specially appear for Brandon Sinclair." (See Doc. 654, 655). The CM/ECF docket entry also reflects that the motion for reconsideration is "by Brandon Sinclair, Richard Sinclair." The motion for reconsideration filed by Richard Sinclair on behalf of himself and Brandon Sinclair is in direct contravention of the court's express and repeated orders that Branson Sinclair represent himself or obtain an independent attorney to do so.
The June 30, 2011 Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 654) and memorandum in support thereof (Doc. 655) filed by Richard Sinclair are STRICKEN as to defendant Brandon Sinclair pursuant to the court's Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., inherent power to manage its docket. See, e.g., Ready 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) ("it is well established that district courts have the strike see also inherent power...to Co. items the Jones v. Metro. Life Ins. from docket"); , 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113219 *18-19 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (collecting cases in which district courts have
IT IS SO ORDERED. stricken documents filed in violation of court orders).
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...