Dolarian Capital, Inc v. SOC, LLC

Filing 119

ORDER to Strike Untimely Separate Statement, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/12/2013. (This district judge STRIKES SOCs 118 corrected separate statement, and plaintiff-counterdefendant need not respond to it, unless a judge of this Court orders otherwise. The February 11 order remains in full effect.) (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
DOLARIAN CAPITAL, INC.,

CASE NO. CV F 11-0031 LJO SAB

12
Plaintiff,

ORDER TO STRIKE UNTIMELY SEPARATE
STATEMENT
(Doc. 118.)

13
vs.
14
SOC, LLC,
15
Defendant.
16
/
17
18

AND RELATED COUNTER-ACTION.

19

___________________________________/

20
21

On the February 8, 2013 deadline to file dispositive motions, defendant-counterclaimant SOC,

22

LLC (“SOC”) filed its summary judgment papers which failed to comply with Local Rule 260(a). This

23

district judge’s February 11, 2013 (“February 11 order”) order struck SOC’s summary judgment papers

24

for disobedience of Local Rule 260(a) and vacated the March 6, 2013 hearing. The February 11 order

25

admonished: “This district judge is disinclined to grant SOC relief to refile summary judgment papers

26

given that the dispositive motion deadline has passed.” Despite the February 11 order and after

27

communication with chambers, SOC filed an untimely corrected separate statement of undisputed

28

material facts (doc. 118) without this Court’s permission.
1

1

This district judge does not consider this matter a mere “clerical error.” As noted in the February

2

11 order, SOC’s original summary judgment papers disobey Local Rule 260(a). The dispositive motion

3

filing deadline passed before SOC filed its corrected separate statement to render such filing untimely.

4

SOC failed to seek relief of the February 11 order or the expired deadline prior to filing its corrected

5

separate statement and has required this district judge to devote inordinate efforts to address SOC’s

6

disobedience of this Court’s Local Rules and orders. As such, this district judge STRIKES SOC’s

7

corrected separate statement, and plaintiff-counterdefendant need not respond to it, unless a judge of this

8

Court orders otherwise. The February 11 order remains in full effect.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 12, 2013

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
66h44d
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2