Van Noland et al v. Pelletier et al
Filing
42
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/14/09 ORDERING that Pltfs' 23 Motion for contempt is DENIED without prejudice. Pltfs have filed two motions seeking the recusal of the undersigned, 35 & 37 . Both motions were directed to the assigned district judge and neither was properly noticed in compliance with Local Rule 78-230. Accordingly, the undersigned will not address those motions at this time. (Engbretson, K.)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Plaintiffs, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MILTON CHARLES VAN NOLAND, and JOY GARNER, No. CIV S-09-2035 MCE DAD PS v. ERIC S. PELLETIER and "Grrr! LIMITED," Defendants. / This case came before the court on September 11, 2009, for hearing on plaintiffs' motion for sanctions. (Doc. No. 17.) Plaintiffs Milton Charles Van Nolan and Joy Garner, proceeding pro se, appeared on their own behalf. James Arguellas, Esq. appeared telephonically for defendants Eric S. Pelletier and Grrr! Limited. For the reasons set forth on the record at the hearing, plaintiffs' motion for sanctions was denied without prejudice to renewal following resolution of plaintiffs' pending motion for remand if appropriate.1 In addition, plaintiffs' motion for contempt (Doc. No. 23) was not properly noticed for hearing under Local Rule 78-230 and is therefore denied without prejudice. ORDER
Plaintiffs' motion for remand has been noticed for hearing on September 18, 2009. 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Plaintiffs have filed two motions seeking the recusal of the undersigned. (Doc. Nos 35 & 37.) At the hearing on September 11, 2009, plaintiffs indicated that one of those two motions was to be heard by the undersigned. A review of the court's docket, however, reveals that both motions were directed to the assigned district judge and that neither was properly noticed in compliance with Local Rule 78-230. Accordingly, the undersigned will not address those motions at this time. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 14, 2009.
Ddad1\orders.pro se\vannoland2035.oah0911.wpd
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?