IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 24, 2012
CHRISTOPHER D. SCHNEIDER, PLAINTIFF,
BANK OF AMERICA N.A., ET AL.,
Plaintiff, Christopher Schneider, is proceeding in this action pro se. The case was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff has filed a motion to "allow witness testimony in support of his preliminary injunction motion" scheduled to be heard before the undersigned on March 2, 2012. (Doc. No. 37.)*fn1 Therein, plaintiff asserts that he "feels that the two witness (sic); Amber Loiler of El Dorado Savings Bank, and Margaret Doll formerly of Amador Title . . . are needed to support" facts concerning the "dispute account" opened by plaintiff and "the events of January 30, 2001 regarding the deed of trust and note--issues that are bitterly disputed." (Id. at 1.)
Additionally, plaintiff asserts that he is willing to call a witness to substantiate the irreparable harm "that continues to be sustained by him due to the acts of Defendants, though this witness can made (sic) a declaration." (Id. at 1-2.) Defendant Bank of America, N.A., has filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion. (Doc. No. 40.)
Local Rule 230(h) provides that:
Factual contentions involved in pretrial motions shall be initially presented and heard upon affidavits, except that the Court may in its discretion require or allow oral examination of witnesses.
Here, plaintiff has not presented an affidavit of any witness in connection with his motion.*fn2 It is not apparent that any witness is willing to testify at the scheduled hearing.*fn3 Nor has plaintiff alleged with any specificity the anticipated substance of the live testimony he seeks to present. Most importantly, at this juncture, the court finds witnesses testimony unnecessary for hearing of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. If, after hearing argument on plaintiff's motion, the court determines that such testimony would be helpful in resolving the motion , the court will re-visit plaintiff's request.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's January 9, 2012 motion to allow witness testimony (Doc. No. 37), re-noticed before the undersigned on January 20, 2012, (Doc. No. 50) is denied.