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.

Rafael Gonzalez, et al v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 8, 2013

RAFAEL GONZALEZ, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, ET AL.,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge

ORDER STRIKING FILED DOCUMENTS; AND ORDER REQUIRING REFILING

On February 20, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiffs to take several actions. Plaintiffs' counsel was required to file a motion substituting out Joseph Sclafani, Esq., who he represented had abandoned Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' counsel was also required to supplement his briefing on his motion for leave to amend, by filing a copy of the state court docket for this action. Plaintiffs were also ordered to show cause why all Defendants other than JP Morgan Chase Bank should not be dismissed, for failure to serve.

Plaintiff's counsel attempted to respond to the Court's order, but did not do so correctly. To begin with, all documents were filed in a single docket entry, styled "Motion for Order to Show Cause for extension of time to serve defendants and substitute attorney." (Docket no. 16.) Two different motions are filed together in this one docket entry. In addition, The notice of motion says the motions to be heard on that day are the motion for leave to amend, and the motion for extension of time to serve Defendants.*fn1 In effect, this gives him a month and three weeks before his request for extension of time would even be heard.

The Court also notes that while Plaintiff did supplement the record by filing a state court docket, that docket is for a completely different case, Leticia Gonzalez v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., which was dismissed before this case was filed. That printout is followed, for reasons that are not clear, by a printout of the notice of removal, which has already been filed in the docket. Plaintiff must supplement the briefing on his motion to dismiss by filing a printout of the state court docket in this case. (All that is required is the docket printout, not a printout of all documents filed.) The reason the Court is requiring the filing of this document is to confirm Plaintiffs' counsel's statements, including his representations that he filed a substitution of counsel, and that did not have notice this case had been removed.

Finally, the substitution of counsel is included as a section in the larger motion. Plaintiffs' counsel should instead have filed a separate request signed by both Plaintiffs and himself, and served on Plaintiffs' former attorney. See Civil Local Rule 83.3(g)(2).

Because the filed documents are in improper format and in violation of rules, and are unresponsive to the Court's February 20 order, they are ordered STRICKEN, and the Clerk shall remove them from the docket. Plaintiff's counsel is ORDERED to refile them no later than noon on March 14, 2013, correcting the errors this order has identified. If he has questions about how to accomplish electronic filing, he should consult this District's CM/ECF Policies and Procedures manual, available online at the Court's website, or contact the CM/ECF helpline.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.