Snyder v. HSBC Bank USA NA et al

Filing 45

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that former Defendant Les Zieve's Declaration re: Defendant's Request for Reasonable Attorney's Fees and Cost [sic], doc. 43, is STRICKEN without prejudice. If former Defendant Les Zieve timely and fully complies with this Order, his refiled Declaration re: Defendant's Request for Reasonable Attorney's Fees and Cost [sic] shall relate back to its initial filing date pursuant to Rule 15(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that former Defendant may re-file his Declaration re: Defendant's Request for Reasonable Attorneys Fees and Cost [sic] on or before Monday July 23, 2012 which, if re-filed, shall be substantively identical to the June 25, 2012 filing, except he shall comply in all respects with this Order and the Local Rules or the Court may deny ab initio his request for fees. (See document for further details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 7/13/12. (LAD)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Susan M. Snyder, a married woman, as her) sole and separate property, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) HSBC Bank, USA, N.A., a foreign) corporation and Ocwen Loan Servicing,) LLC, a foreign limited liability company,) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) No. CV-12-16-PHX-LOA ORDER 17 The Court is in receipt of the former Defendant, Les Zieve’s, Declaration seeking a 18 Request for Reasonable Attorney’s Fees and Cost [sic], doc. 43. The Declaration violates the 19 District of Arizona’s Local Rules because it was not properly filed in text-searchable format 20 per Local Rule (“LRCiv”) 7.1(c), 5.5(b) and the definition of “.pdf.” in the District Court’s 21 ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, at I(A), p. 2. Additionally, the 22 Declaration violates LRCiv 7.1(a)(1) because there is no email address for the attorney 23 appearing in the matter. The Court will strike the non-conforming filing without prejudice. 24 LRCiv 7.1(d)(5). The Court only desires compliance with the Local Rules, not imposing 25 punitive measures. 26 The Ninth Circuit has “explain[ed], yet again, the importance of following a district 27 court’s local rules. ‘District courts have broad discretion in interpreting and applying their 28 1 local rules.’” Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 2 Miranda v. South Pac. Transp. Co., 710 F.2d 516, 521 (9th Cir. 1983)). Local rules have 3 “the force of law.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 705, 710 (2010) 4 (quoting Weil v. Neary, 278 U.S. 160, 169 (1929)). They “are binding upon the parties and 5 upon the court, and a departure from local rules that affects substantial rights requires 6 reversal.” Professional Programs Group v. Department of Commerce, 29 F.3d 1349, 1353 7 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). 8 LRCiv 7.1(c) mandates that “[d]ocuments submitted for filing in the ECF System 9 shall be in a portable document format (.pdf). Documents which exist only in paper format 10 shall be scanned into .pdf for electronic filing. All other documents shall be converted to 11 .pdf directly from a word processing program (e.g., Microsoft Word® and Corel 12 WordPerfect®), rather than created from the scanned image of a paper document.” LRCiv 13 5.5(a) and (b) authorize the Clerk “to develop, publish and implement an Electronic Case 14 Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual for the District of Arizona 15 (Administrative Manual)” and establish the “filing of documents electronically in 16 compliance with these rules and the Administrative Manual will constitute [proper] filing....” 17 On the Court’s own motion, 18 IT IS ORDERED that former Defendant Les Zieve’s Declaration re: Defendant’s 19 Request for Reasonable Attorney’s Fees and Cost [sic], doc. 43, is STRICKEN without 20 prejudice. If former Defendant Les Zieve timely and fully complies with this Order, his re- 21 filed Declaration re: Defendant’s Request for Reasonable Attorney’s Fees and Cost [sic] 22 shall relate back to its initial filing date pursuant to Rule 15(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that former Defendant may re-file his Declaration re: 24 Defendant’s Request for Reasonable Attorney’s Fees and Cost [sic] on or before Monday 25 July 23, 2012 which, if re-filed, shall be substantively identical to the June 25, 2012 filing, 26 except he shall comply in all respects with this Order and the Local Rules or the Court may 27 deny ab initio his request for fees. 28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, except as set forth herein, all counsels’ -2- 1 pleadings, motions, memoranda, or other filings in this case shall be created via personal 2 computed with a word processing application, e.g., Microsoft Word® or Corel 3 WordPerfect®, then converted to portable document format (.pdf). See LRCiv 7.1(c) and 4 definition of “.pdf,” ECF Manual at 1(A), p. 2. (“[E]lectronic documents must be converted 5 to .pdf directly from a word processing program (e.g., Microsoft Word® or Corel 6 WordPerfect® and must be text searchable.”). Such filings shall not be printed to paper then 7 scanned and saved as portable document format (.pdf). Documents which exist only in paper 8 form, like exhibits or certain attachments to pleadings may, however, be scanned from a 9 paper copy and saved in a portable document format (.pdf). 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall comply with the District Court’s 11 civil Local Rules, including LRCiv 7.1(a) (1) which mandates that the email address of the 12 attorney appearing for the party be included in the upper left hand corner. 13 Dated this 13th day of July, 2012. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?