IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 2, 2013
CHICO STEAKHOUSE, LP DBA OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE; CHICO MALL, LP, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
Attorney Anthony Nguyen called and then e-mailed the undersigned judge's courtroom deputy clerk the attached e-mail. In the e-mail, counsel appears to be attempting to seek inappropriate legal advice from the courtroom deputy clerk. Counsel appears persistent in this attempt since his e-mail shows he left the undersigned judge's courtroom deputy clerk "voicemails . . . yesterday . . . [r]egarding Order No. 20, 'Order Striking Amended Answer,'" and that he is "confused as Defendant Chico Steakhouse never filed an Amended Answer."*fn1 Counsel appears resolutely committed to seeking legal advice from the courtroom deputy clerk as stated in the last sentence of his e-mail: "If I can speak with you about this to see what we can do about correcting these issues, I would really appreciate it." Counsel shall discontinue trying to speak to the courtroom deputy clerk about this matter. It should be pellucid that counsel should instead "become familiar with and follow [the] rule applicable to practice in this court [about which he appears to seek legal advice from chambers]. It is incumbent upon an attorney practicing in [this court] to secure and study" the rule applicable to a ruling that disappoints the attorney, and presumably his or her client. Dela Rosa v. Scottsdale Mem'l Health Sys., Inc.,136 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1998). "Such behavior is not only a mark of elementary professional competence, but is common sense to attorneys seeking to zealously represent the interests of their clients." Id.
If Attorney Nguyen continues to communicate or to try to communicate with the courtroom deputy clerk on the topic that is the subject of his e-mail, he and his client will be issued an order to show cause why he and his client should not be sanctioned for disobedience of this court order. It seems apparent that Mr. Nguyen's unyielding obstinance in his persistence in speaking to the courtroom deputy clerk stems from his failure to understand that the undersigned judge decided that counsel's client was not authorized to amend its answer as a matter of right. See Adobe Sys. Inc., 2012 WL 3877783, at *5. It should be obvious to Attorney Nguyen and his client by now that if counsel's client wants to request something from the Court, it should be sought in a noticed motion. Obviously, law and motion hearing dates may be obtained from the courtroom deputy clerk.