Hart v. PAE Government Services Incorporated
Filing
61
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/15/2011 DENYING, without prejudice, plaintiff's Motions 59 for Dispute Resolution and 60 for Partial Relief. (Marciel, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JOHN HENRY HART,
11
Plaintiff,
vs.
12
13
No. CIV S-10-1672 KJM EFB PS
PAE GOVERNMENT SERVICES
INCORPORATED,
14
Defendant.
ORDER
/
15
16
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action, which was referred to
17
the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C.
18
§ 636(b)(1).
On September 6, 2011, plaintiff filed a “Dispute Resolution Motion.” Dckt. No. 59.
19
20
Plaintiff states that he “motions the courts as well as the defense in [its] recognition of the
21
economic burdens faced by this case, we seek means to resolve this matter by: (1) Plaintiff and
22
the Counsel for the defense, (2) ADR Judge, (3) Trial before Jury.” Id. Because it is unclear
23
what relief plaintiff seeks in his motion, the motion will be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff is
24
reminded, however, that he is free to work with defendant’s counsel toward settlement of the
25
////
26
////
1
1
case,1 and the parties are also free to participate in any private Alternative Dispute Resolution
2
(“ADR”) process. Additionally, notwithstanding Local Rule 271(a)(2)(ii), if both plaintiff and
3
defendant so desire, they may file a request that this action be referred to the court’s Voluntary
4
Dispute Resolution Program (“VDRP”) by filing a Stipulation and Order reflecting the
5
agreement of all parties to submit the action to the VDRP pursuant to Local Rule 271. See E.D.
6
Cal. L.R. 143; 271(I). Finally, if both parties conclude that a court settlement conference would
7
likely resolve the case, they may contact the clerk to request that one be scheduled.
8
Additionally, on September 13, 2011, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Relief.” Dckt. No. 60.
9
Although it is not labeled as such, it appears to be plaintiff’s fourth motion for summary
10
judgment in this action.2 Dckt. No. 22. However, once again, plaintiff’s motion does not
11
comply with the requirements set forth in Local Rules 230(b) and 260(a), in that it was not
12
noticed for hearing, does not contain any supporting authority or evidence, and was not
13
accompanied by a Statement of Undisputed Facts. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(b) (“[A]ll motions
14
shall be noticed on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge. The moving
15
party shall file with the Clerk a notice of motion, motion, accompanying briefs, affidavits, if
16
appropriate, and copies of all documentary evidence that the moving party intends to submit in
17
support of the motion.”); 260(a) (“Each motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication
18
shall be accompanied by a ‘Statement of Undisputed Facts’ that shall enumerate discretely each
19
of the specific material facts relied upon in support of the motion and cite the particular portions
20
of any pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer, admission or other document relied
21
upon to establish that fact.”). Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for relief, Dckt. No. 60, will be
22
denied without prejudice.
23
1
24
25
26
Plaintiff and defendant’s counsel are reminded of their continuing duty to notify
chambers immediately of any settlement or other disposition. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 160.
2
Plaintiff also filed motions for summary judgment on October 12, 2010, March 1, 2011,
and July 5, 2011, which were denied without prejudice as premature and procedurally improper.
Dckt. Nos. 6, 7, 22, 24, 38, 40.
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. Plaintiff’s dispute resolution motion, Dckt. No. 59, is denied without prejudice; and
3
2. Plaintiff’s motion for relief, Dckt. No. 60, is also denied without prejudice.
4
DATED: September 15, 2011
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?