Cota et al v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 8

ORDER REJECTING FILING, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/9/2018. (Gaumnitz, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE COTA and ADELAIDE COTA, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:18-cv-00133-DAD-JLT Plaintiffs, v. ORDER REJECTING FILING LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiffs Jose Cota and Adelaide Cota, appearing pro se, filed a complaint in the Kern 18 County Superior Court on December 11, 2017, alleging one cause of action for breach of contract 19 against defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance. (Doc. No. 1, Ex. A.) On January 25, 2018, 20 defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance removed the action to this federal court on the basis of 21 diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 1.) On February 1, 2018, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, 22 which is currently pending before this court. (Doc. No. 3.) Defendants properly noticed a 23 hearing on the motion to dismiss for March 20, 2018. (Id.) 24 On March 5 and 7, 2018, the Clerk of the Court received hundreds of pages of documents 25 mailed by plaintiffs which did not, on their face, relate to or refer to this case. Accordingly, the 26 Clerk of the Court notified the undersigned of the voluminous filing and requested direction as to 27 whether the documents should be filed as a new action, filed in this case or returned to the 28 submitting party. The undersigned has briefly reviewed the large filing and concludes that its 1 1 relevance to defendant’s pending motion to dismiss is entirely unclear. Among other documents, 2 plaintiffs’ submission includes a “writ of mandamus” and a “writ of quo warranto,” which have 3 no apparent relevance to this case or the pending motion to dismiss. Most perplexingly, plaintiffs 4 have submitted a “Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion of Defendant Liberty Mutual 5 Insurance Inc. To Dismiss the Complaint.” Other than plaintiffs’ substitution of the case caption 6 and party names in certain places, this memorandum appears to be parroted verbatim from a 7 pleading filed in some other, unrelated action. In this regard, the memorandum filed by plaintiffs 8 refers to a defendant “Wikimedia Foundation,” which is not named as a defendant in this action, 9 and also refers to claims for defamation and interference with prospective economic advantage, 10 which are causes of action not alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint filed in this action. Although 11 plaintiffs have signed the memorandum, notably, the signature line of the memorandum also 12 identifies a “Charles A. LeGrand” as the attorney for defendant Wikimedia Foundation. 13 Despite plaintiffs’ pro se status, warranting the granting of some latitude, the court 14 declines to pore through the hundreds of pages submitted by plaintiffs to discern which may be 15 relevant to the matter pending before this court. Pursuant to the Standing Order of this court 16 issued January 25, 2018, “[u]nless prior leave of Court is obtained, all moving and opposition 17 briefs or legal memorandum in civil cases shall not exceed 25 pages.” (Doc. No. 2-1 at 2.) To 18 the extent that plaintiffs intended the submission which violates that standing order to constitute 19 an opposition to defendant’s pending motion to dismiss, the submission will be rejected for filing 20 and the Clerk of the Court will be directed to return it to plaintiffs by mail. Plaintiffs will be 21 permitted to file and serve an opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss that conforms to the 22 page limitation specified above by March 16, 2018. If defendant wishes to file a reply, it may do 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 by March 19, 2018. At this time, the properly noticed hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss 2 will proceed on March 20, 2018, before the undersigned.1 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: March 9, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 If any opposition filed by plaintiffs is substantive and counsel for defendant is unable to properly reply to it by March 19, 2018 or at the hearing, counsel for defendant may request additional time to file a written reply at the hearing. 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?