Fatte Alberts v. Pizzaman's Pavilion et al

Filing 33

NOTICE Regarding Defendant Michael Jensen's Ex Parte Communication, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/13/2020. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

FATTE ALBERTS, a California
partnership,
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

No. 1:20-cv-00238-DAD-SKO

PIZZAMAN’S PAVILION and MICHAEL
JENSEN,

16

NOTICE REGARDING DEFENDANT
MICHAEL JENSEN’S EX PARTE
COMMUNICATION

Defendants.

17
18
On November 11, 2020, court staff received an ex parte communication from defendant
19
Michael Jensen seeking guidance on various matters including a request for assistance in
20

obtaining counsel on behalf of defendant Pizzaman’s Pavilion.1 The message the court received

21
is copied below:
22
23

Hello ,

24

I am inquiring about
indigent defendant.

25

28

and/or

procedure

for

an

My motion to dismiss was denied in the case above and the

26
27

policy

The court again notes that although defendant Pizzaman’s Pavilion appears on the docket as
representing itself, this entry on the docket is in error. Consistent with federal law, Local Rule
183 provides that “[a] corporation or other entity may appear only by an attorney.”
1
1

1

federal court states that i [sic] will need to secure an attorney in
order to be heard.

2
As you are aware, we have been in a six month shut down due to
COVID 19, and my business was deemed non-essential in my
County, and I am about to lose my entire business and cannot afford
$30k for an attorney in a court that is nine hours away from me.

3
4
5

This is definitely the wrong court but the judge believes it is the
correct venue.

6
Can you please inform me of the procedure i [sic] would have to
follow without being able to secure legal representation?.

7
8

Is there legal penalties for being so broke that an attorney is out of
the question?

9
I appreciate your time in this matter.
10
Mike Jensen
11
12
13

Email from Michael Jensen to courtroom deputy Jami Thorp (Nov. 11, 2020 10:03 PST).
The court cannot provide legal advice to litigants, including litigants proceeding pro se.

14

The court also cannot engage in ex parte communications with litigants or their counsel. To the

15

extent defendant Jensen has need to communicate with the court again by email, he is directed to

16

copy counsel for the plaintiff on any such communications sent to the court.

17

The court will provide the following sources of information to defendant Jensen; however,

18

the provision of these links is not to be construed as a recommendation, endorsement, or

19

requirement by the court:

20

•

Representing Yourself (Pro Se Litigant), U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of

21

California, http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/cmecf-e-

22

filing/representing-yourself-pro-se-litigant/

23

•

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Public/Need-Legal-Help/Lawyer-Referral-Service.

24
25
26

Lawyer Referral Services, The State Bar of California,

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 13, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2