Maria M. Flores De Ramirez v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. et al

Filing 27

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Further Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Issued; ORDER STRIKING Motion to Remand 17 ; Order Requiring Additional Meet and Confer by Judge John F. Walter: the Court hereby STRIKES Plaintiff's Motion to Reman d [Docket No. 17 ] for failure to comply with Local Rule 7-3 and paragraph 5(b) of the Court's Standing Order. If Plaintiff wishes to re-file its Motion to Remand, the parties shall meet and confer in person by J7/6/2015. Within 3 days of the m eet and confer, each party shall file a declaration setting forth the issues resolved at the conference and those issues that were not resolved with a detailed explanation of why those issues could not be resolved. If a Motion to Remand remains neces sary, Plaintiff shall not file it until 2 days after each party files the declaration required by this Order. In addition, on or before 7/6/2015, John Earl Mortimer is ordered to show cause inwriting why he should not be sanctioned in the amount of $3,000.00 for his continued violation of the Local Rules and the Court's Standing Order or why this action should not be dismissed. Failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause will result in the dismissal of this action. (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-4115-JFW (PJWx)

Title:

Maria M. Flores De Ramirez -v- Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., et al.

Date: June 29, 2015

PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None

FURTHER ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED;
ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO REMAND [filed
6/17/15; Docket No. 17];
ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL MEET AND
CONFER;

Local Rule 7-3 requires that “counsel contemplating the filing of any motion shall first
contact opposing counsel to discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the
contemplated motion and any potential resolution.” Local Rule 7-3. Generally, this conference of
counsel “shall take place at least seven (7) days prior to the filing of the motion.” Id. “If the parties
are unable to reach a resolution which eliminates the necessity for a hearing, counsel for the
moving party shall include in the notice of motion a statement to the following effect: ‘This motion is
made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3 which took place on (date).’” Id. In
addition, the Court’s Standing Order further provides:
Counsel should discuss the issues with sufficient detail so that if a motion is still
necessary, the briefing may be directed to those substantive issues requiring
resolution by the Court. . . . All 7-3 conferences shall take place via a communication
method that, at a minimum, allows all parties to be in realtime communication (letters
and e-mail, for example, do not constitute a proper 7-3 conference). . . . Within three
days of the conference, counsel shall file a joint statement indicating the date,
duration, and communication method of the conference. In addition, the joint
statement shall detail the issues discussed and resolved during the conference and
the issues remaining.
Page 1 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

Standing Order [Docket No. 8 at ¶ 5(b).
On June 8, 2015, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why John Earl
Mortimer, counsel for Plaintiff Maria M. Flores De Ramirez a/k/a Magdalena F. Rameriz (“Plaintiff”),
should not be sanctioned in the amount of $1,500 or why this action should not be dismissed for
Mr. Mortimer’s refusal to respond to defense counsel’s efforts to comply with Local Rule 7-3 with
respect to Defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss. On June 13, 2015, Mr. Mortimer
filed his Response to the OSC, in which he stated that he would “be more cognizant of both
following the Local Rules and ensuring proper maintenance and progression of this action going
forward.” Response, 4:6-7. However, according to counsel for Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
(“Select”), Mr. Mortimer failed to respond to counsel’s telephone call and e-mail regarding Select’s
Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted.
On June 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand [Docket No. 17], in which Mr. Mortimer
states that the parties conducted a meet and confer conference “on or about June 09, 2015" but
were unable to resolve or narrow the issues. Notice of Motion, 2:14-15. The Court concludes that
counsel for the parties failed to engage in an adequate meet and confer conference.
Accordingly, the Court hereby STRIKES Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Docket No. 17] for
failure to comply with Local Rule 7-3 and paragraph 5(b) of the Court’s Standing Order. If Plaintiff
wishes to re-file its Motion to Remand, the parties shall meet and confer in person by July 6, 2015.
Within 3 days of the meet and confer, each party shall file a declaration setting forth the issues
resolved at the conference and those issues that were not resolved with a detailed explanation of
why those issues could not be resolved. If a Motion to Remand remains necessary, Plaintiff shall
not file it until 2 days after each party files the declaration required by this Order.
In addition, on or before July 6, 2015, John Earl Mortimer is ordered to show cause in
writing why he should not be sanctioned in the amount of $3,000.00 for his continued violation of
the Local Rules and the Court’s Standing Order or why this action should not be dismissed.
No oral argument on this matter will be heard unless otherwise ordered by the Court. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of the response
to the Order to Show Cause. Failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause will result in the
dismissal of this action
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr