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)

Download PDF
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

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?