Sinclair et al v. Fox Hollow, et al

Filing 683

ORDER STRIKING Documents Filed In Violation of Court Orders 654 and 655 , signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 07/19/2011. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8

RICHARD SINCLAIR, et al.
Plaintiffs,

9
10
11
12

FOX HOLLOW OF TURLOCK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, et al.
Defendants.

14

16
17
18
19
20
21

On February 8, 2010, the court issued an order prohibiting
Richard Sinclair from representing “any of the Defendants in the
within action other than himself, individually, and other than a
non-individual Defendant in which he is and at all times has been
the sole owner.”

24
25
26
27

(Doc. 362).

Despite the express language of the

February 2010 order, Richard Sinclair continued to file documents
and make court appearances in which he purported to “specially
appear” for Brandon Sinclair and others throughout 2010 and 2011.

22
23

ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENTS FILED
IN VIOLATION OF COURT ORDERS

v.

13

15

1:03-cv-05439-OWW-DLB

On April 15, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the
court’s prior orders regarding Richard Sinclair’s representation of
parties other than himself in this action.

(Doc. 544).

The court

heard Plaintiffs’ motion on June 6, 2011.

(Doc. 616). During the

hearing, the court orally granted Plaintiffs’ motion with respect
to

enforcing

the

prohibition

28
1

against

Richard

Sinclair’s

1

representation

2

directed Brandon Sinclair to file a statement apprising the court

3

of whether he intended to proceed in pro per.

4

ruling on Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions and permitted Richard

5

Sinclair to file supplemental opposition regarding the sanctions

6

issue.

7

represent myself” on June 13, 2011.

8
9

of,

inter

alia,

Brandon

Sinclair.

The

court

The court reserved

Brandon Sinclair filed a Declaration stating “I...elect to

On

June

30,

Richard

purporting

reconsideration

2011,

to

(Doc. 624).

Sinclair

“specially

a

appear[]

motion
for

for

Brandon

10

Sinclair.”

11

reflects

12

Sinclair, Richard Sinclair.”

13

by Richard Sinclair on behalf of himself and Brandon Sinclair is in

14

direct contravention of the court’s express and repeated orders

15

that Branson Sinclair represent himself or obtain an independent

16

attorney to do so.

17

The June 30, 2011 Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 654) and
memorandum in support thereof (Doc. 655) filed by Richard Sinclair
are STRICKEN as to defendant Brandon Sinclair pursuant to the
court’s inherent power to manage its docket.
See, e.g., Ready
Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (“it
is well established that district courts have the inherent
power...to strike items from the docket”); see also Jones v. Metro.
Life Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113219 *18-19 (N.D. Cal. 2010)
(collecting cases in which district courts have stricken documents
filed in violation of court orders).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20
21

(See Doc. 654, 655).

filed

that

the

motion

for

The CM/ECF docket entry also

reconsideration

is

“by

The motion for reconsideration filed

22
23

Dated:
July 19, 2011
emm0d6

Brandon

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2