Paul Weldon v. Dyer et al
Filing
130
ORDER Disregarding Plaintiff's Improperly Noticed Motions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/26/2015. (Hernandez, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PAUL WELDON,
ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
IMPROPERLY NOTICED MOTIONS
Plaintiff,
12
13
Case No. 1:13-cv-00540-LJO-SAB
v.
ECF NO. 122, 124, 126
14
15
JERRY DYER, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
On March 24, 2015, Plaintiff Paul Weldon (“Plaintiff”) filed three motions. (ECF Nos.
18 122, 124, 126.)
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting
19 Defendants’ motion to compel, a motion to stay discovery pending the resolution of the
20 outstanding motions for summary judgment, and a motion to stay the enforcement of the order
21 imposing $715.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.
22
Plaintiff set the hearing date on all three motions for April 6, 2015. The motions were
23 filed on March 24, 2015, leaving only thirteen days calendar days between the date the motions
24 were filed and the date of the hearing.
25
Under Local Rule 230(b), motions must be set for a hearing date not less than twenty-
26 eight (28) days after service and filing of the motion, unless otherwise provided for in the Local
27 Rules or by order of the Court. An exception is provided for motions dealing with discovery
28 matters. Under Local Rule 251(a), the hearing date for motions concerning discovery matters
1
1 must be calendared at least twenty-one (21) days from the date of the filing and service of the
2 motion.1
Plaintiff previously filed a motion to stay discovery on March 20, 2015, which the Court
3
4 disregarded for failing to comply with the Local Rule requirements pertaining to the hearing
5 date. Plaintiff attempted to have the matter heard on March 25, 2015. On March 24, 2015, the
6 Court issued a motion disregarding the prior motion because it failed to comply with the Local
7 Rule’s requirements regarding the number of days between the filing of the motion and the
8 hearing date. The Court will disregard the present three motions for the same reason.2 Plaintiff’s
9 pending three motions will similarly be denied without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to refile them
10 in compliance with the requirements set forth in the Local Rules.
Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions, filed on March 24, 2015, are DENIED
11
12 without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to refile them on a properly noticed date and time.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15 Dated:
March 26, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
The hearing may be calendared seven (7) days or more after the filing of the motion if it is filed concurrently with
a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement. Local Rule 251(a). However, no Joint Statement has been filed.
2
It is unclear whether Plaintiff was aware of the Court’s March 24, 2015 order when he filed the present three
28 motions on the same day.
2
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?