Durand et al v. Stephenson et al

Filing 35

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/14/2010. No later that 8/6/2010: 1) plaintiffs shall SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why conduct their has not violated FRCP 11(b); 2) they shall file competent evidence establishing aut henticity of Noble Murry appraisal dated February 2006; and 3) defendant shall submit complete copies of deposition transcripts of all parties to this action. Upon receipt of plaintiffs' submission under this Order, Court will determine whether an Evidentiary Hearing shall be set.(Marciel, M)

(PS) Durand et al v. Stephenson et al

Doc. 35

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 / Defendants' motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment came on regularly for hearing July 14, 2010. Plaintiffs Edwin and Madelaine Durand appeared in propria persona. Glenn Peterson appeared for defendants. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of plaintiffs and counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Before the court can reach the merits of defendants' motion, which challenges this court's jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff's case, it must clarify the evidentiary record on the motion. The record presently before the court calls into serious doubt the authenticity of the Noble Murray appraisal dated February 2006. Plaintiffs represented at the hearing, as is confirmed by the complaint, that this appraisal was the basis for plaintiff's good faith belief that 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EDWIN DURAND, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. CANDICE STEPHENSON, et al., Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 11(c)(3) No. CIV S-09-2038 JAM KJM PS

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

the amount in controversy was met for diversity jurisdiction. See Complaint ¶ 12. Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, are bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It appears that plaintiffs may have violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). Plaintiffs will be provided an opportunity to authenticate the Noble Murray appraisal and explain why their conduct has not violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). In the absence of proper authentication, the court will consider the imposition of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(4). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. No later than August 6, 2010, plaintiffs shall show cause, in writing, why their conduct has not violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). 2. No later than August 6, 2010, plaintiffs shall file competent evidence establishing the authenticity of the Noble Murray appraisal dated February 2006. 3. Upon receipt of plaintiffs' submissions under this order, the court will determine whether an evidentiary hearing shall be set. 4. No later than August 6, 2010, defendants shall submit complete copies of the deposition transcripts of all parties to this action. DATED: July 14, 2010.

006

26

durand.osc

2