Affordable Builders of America, Inc. v. Thomas ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABOA, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-01381-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Paul Thomas, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 In this case arising from a disputed aircraft lease agreement, the parties have filed the 18 | following pleadings: 1) ex parte application for reference to the magistrate judge by plaintiff; 19 | 2) request for judicial notice and sanctions by defendants; 3) motion to vacate the clerk’s entry of 20 | default by plaintiff; 4) unified response and request for declaratory judgment by plaintiff; and 5) 21 | motion in limine by plaintiff. For the reasons below, the court strikes all the above pleadings for 22 | not complying with Local Rules and the court’s standing order. 23 First, plaintiffs ex parte application for reference to the magistrate judge, Ex Parte Appl., 24 | ECF No. 28, does not comply with this court’s standing order on ex parte applications, Standing 25 | Order at 5, ECF No. 4-1. For instance, the application does not include an affidavit. See Ex Parte 26 | Appl. 27 Second, defendants’ request for judicial notice and sanctions, Req. Jud. Notice & 28 | Sanctions, ECF No. 35, does not comply with any of the following: Local Rule on motions for 1 administrative relief, E.D. Cal. L.R. 233, the Local Rule on civil motions, E.D. Cal. L.R. 230, this 2 court’s standing order requiring parties to certify meet and confer efforts have been exhausted, 3 Standing Order at 3, or this court’s standing order on ex parte applications, id. at 5. 4 Third, plaintiff’s motion to vacate the clerk’s entry of default, Mot. Vacate, ECF No. 36, 5 does not comply with the Local Rule on civil motions, E.D. Cal. L.R. 230, or this court’s standing 6 order, Standing Order at 3. In this motion, plaintiff’s counsel states, “Meet and confer efforts 7 were extended without response at this time, but expected to be futile.” Mot. Vacate at 2. 8 Counsel does not include a brief summary of the meet and confer efforts and does not certify such 9 efforts have been exhausted. See Standing Order at 3. The magistrate judge noted “[t]he Motion 10 as filed is deficient,” and directed plaintiff to re-notice its motion before this court. Min. Order 11 (Nov. 14, 2022), ECF No. 38. Plaintiff has not taken any further action regarding this motion. 12 Fourth, plaintiff filed a “unified response to defense pleadings” and request for declaratory 13 judgment, well after the deadline for any responsive pleading. Unified Response & Req. for 14 Declaratory J., ECF No. 44. To the extent it belatedly seeks to respond to defendants’ motions, it 15 is stricken as untimely. See Spurlock v. F.B.I., 69 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir. 1995) (discussing a 16 district court’s “inherent authority to manage its docket”); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 (“Failure of counsel 17 or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for 18 imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 19 inherent power of the Court.”). To the extent the request for declaratory judgment is a motion, it 20 does not comply with the Local Rule on civil motions, E.D. Cal. L.R. 230, or this court’s standing 21 order requiring parties to certify meet and confer efforts have been exhausted, Standing Order at 22 3. 23 Fifth, ABOA filed a motion in limine, “object[ing] to any mention or argument about 24 [plaintiff’s] alleged defaults on matters outside the scope of non-payment . . . .” Mot. in Limine, 25 ECF No. 50. The motion did not comply with the Local Rule on civil motions, E.D. Cal. L.R. 26 230, or this court’s standing order requiring parties to certify meet and confer efforts have been 27 exhausted, Standing Order at 3. 28 ///// 1 For the reasons above, the court strikes the following pleadings: 2 1. Plaintiffs ex parte application for reference to the magistrate judge (ECF No. 28); 3 2. Defendants’ request for judicial notice and sanctions (ECF No. 35); 4 3. Plaintiff's motion to vacate the clerk’s entry of default (ECF No. 36); 5 4. Plaintiff's unified response and request for declaratory judgment (ECF No. 44); 6 5. Plaintiff's motion in limine (ECF No. 50); and 7 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike the filings at ECF Nos. 28, 35, 36, 44 and 8 50. 9 This order resolves ECF Nos. 28, 35, 36, 44 and 50. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 DATED: December 13, 2022. 12 wit CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE