United States of America v. Molen et al

Filing 101

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/29/2011 ORDERING 100 Dfts' "Reply Brief To Court Order Vacating Hearing On Notice OfMotion And Motion For Jury Trial And Demand For Jury Trial" 100 is CONSTRUED as a motion fo r reconsideration of the undersigned's orders at Docket Numbers 95 and 96 , and is DENIED; As the court has now repeatedly advised dfts (Dkt. No. 65 at 6; Dkt. No. 93 at 4-5), successive and repetitious filings of substantially similar motion s (such as motions demanding oral arguments after the court has already determined that a hearing would not materially aid the court's decision, especially where dfts themselves cannot articulate why oral argument is necessary) may be summarily denied and may result in sanctions, including a potential entry of default judgment against dfts. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

No. 2:10-cv-02591 MCE KJN PS

v.
JAMES O. MOLEN (also known as
James-Orbin: Molen); et al.,

14
Defendants.
15

ORDER
/

16

Defendants James Molen and Sandra Molen (the “defendants”) are proceeding

17

without counsel in this action.1 Defendants have filed eight motions in approximately as many

18

weeks, including a “Motion To File Amended Answer” (Dkt. No. 84), and a “Motion To Amend

19

Answer to Complaint” (Dkt. No. 79), both requesting leave to amend their Answer (Dkt. No. 4).

20

The court took defendants’ motions (Dkt. No. 79, 84) under submission on the

21

papers and without oral argument, in accordance with Eastern District Local Rule 230(g), and

22

denied both motions. (Dkt. No. 96 at 1-2.) Specifically, the court vacated the motions’ hearing

23

date and explained that “[b]ecause oral argument would not materially aid the resolution of the

24

pending motions, these matters are submitted on the briefs and record without a hearing.” (Id.

25
1

26

This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule
302(c)(21). (See Dkt. No. 11.)
1

1

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Local Rule 230(g)).)

2

Defendants have since filed a document styled as a “Reply Brief To Court Order

3

Vacating Hearing On Notice Of Motion And Motion For Jury Trial And Demand For Jury Trial”

4

(Dkt. No. 100), in which defendants state that

5

[d]efendants oppose any order that denies their
right to a fair hearing on any motion presented
before the Court. To deny any right to a fair
hearing, whether to the Plaintiff or the
Defendant, is a denial of due process. The
Defendants do request that the Court reopen the
matter for further briefs and oral arguments. The
Defendants are opposed to Newman’s order that
oral argument would not materially aid the
resolution of the pending motion, and that
matters are submitted on the briefs and record
without a hearing.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

(Dkt. No. 100 at 1-2.) The court construes this “Reply Brief” as a motion for reconsideration of

13

the court’s orders at Docket Numbers 95 and 96, and denies the motion.2

14

A.

Local Rule 230(g) Permitted The Court To Take Defendants’ Motions Under
Submission

15
16

While defendants believe oral argument would materially aid the court in

17

resolving the above-described motions, however, defendants do not offer any explanation — let

18

alone a compelling one — as to why “further briefs and oral arguments” (Dkt. No. 100 at 1-2)

19

might have been useful. The court reviewed defendants’ moving papers and deemed those

20

papers sufficient for a determination of the issues raised therein, and, in keeping with the Eastern

21

District Local Rules, took the motions under submission accordingly. Defendants are reminded,

22
23
2

24
25
26

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(j), a motion for reconsideration must state “what new or
different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such
prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion” and “why the facts or circumstances were
not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Local Rule 230(j)(3)-(4). Defendants’ “Reply
Brief” (Dkt. No. 100) does not describe new or different facts or circumstances that would warrant
reconsideration of the court’s Orders (Dkt. Nos. 95, 96).
2

1

yet again, that they are not entitled to oral arguments regarding every motion they file.3

2

Defendants are also directed to review the substance of the court’s orders so as to

3

better understand why their motions were properly taken under submission without oral

4

argument. For instance, as stated in the order denying defendants’ motions to amend their

5

answer (Dkt. Nos. 84, 79), the motions were denied without prejudice because of a procedural

6

defect, namely, the defendants’ failure to attach a draft amended answer to their moving papers

7

pursuant to Local Rule 137(c). (Dkt. No. 96 at 2-3.) Accordingly, an oral argument would not

8

have cured the motions’ procedural defect. In the future, similarly baseless objections to the

9

court’s taking defendants’ motions under submission may be summarily denied. The court does

10

not have the resources to continue to remind defendants that they are not always entitled to oral

11

arguments. Local Rule 230(g).

12

B.

13

Defendants argue (Dkt. No. 100 at 2) that the court gave them insufficient time to

Local Rule 230(d) Governed Defendants’ Deadline To Reply

14

file a Reply brief in support of their Request For Jury Trial (Dkt. Nos. 81, 85), another set of

15

motions that the court took under submission. (Dkt. No. 95.) Defendants are mistaken.

16

Defendants set their Request For Jury Trial to be heard on September 1, 2011.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3

The undersigned has already reminded defendants that they do not have a “right” to make
oral arguments supporting “each and every one of their motions.” (Dkt. No. 65 at 6; Dkt. No. 93 at
4-5.) The undersigned again cautions defendants against filing multiple copies of substantively
identical motions in efforts to achieve their goals, whether those goals are making oral arguments
or obtaining dismissal of the case against them. (Dkt. No. 65 at 2-3, 6-7.) The multiplicity of
defendants’ improper and duplicative filings is a burden on the court and the plaintiff, and impedes
the progress of this action. In the future, such conduct may be sanctioned, and the sanctions may
include entry of default judgment against defendants. See, e.g., Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City
of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (“District courts have inherent power to
control their dockets. In the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where
appropriate, default or dismissal.”); accord In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability, 460
F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Thompson). As the court has already advised defendants
(Dkt. No. 65), successive and repetitious filings of substantially similar motions, such as those
continuing to demand oral arguments where the court has already determined that a hearing would
not materially aid the court’s decision (and where defendants themselves cannot seem to articulate
why oral argument is necessary), will not aid defendants and may result in sanctions including a
potential entry of default judgment. See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831.
3

1

(Dkt. No. 85.) It was defendants’ own selection of the September 1, 2011 hearing date that

2

established August 25, 2011, as the deadline for them to file their Reply brief. See Local Rule

3

230(d) (“Reply. Not less than seven (7) days preceding the date of hearing, the moving party

4

may serve and file a reply to any opposition filed by a responding party.”). Seven days before

5

September 1, 2011, was August 25, 2011. Accordingly, defendants were already obligated to

6

file their Reply brief on August 25, 2011, a date the court further clarified within the order taking

7

those motions under submission. (Dkt. No. 95.) Defendants’ argument that they were prejudiced

8

by having to file a Reply brief by this August 25, 2011 deadline is not well-taken. Defendants

9

had already subjected themselves to that very deadline when they filed their moving papers and

10

selected September 1, 2011, as the hearing date.

11

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

Defendants’ “Reply Brief To Court Order Vacating Hearing On Notice Of

13

Motion And Motion For Jury Trial And Demand For Jury Trial” (Dkt. No. 100) is construed as a

14

motion for reconsideration of the undersigned’s orders at Docket Numbers 95 and 96, and is

15

denied.

16

2.

As the court has now repeatedly advised defendants (Dkt. No. 65 at 6; Dkt.

17

No. 93 at 4-5), successive and repetitious filings of substantially similar motions (such as

18

motions demanding oral arguments after the court has already determined that a hearing would

19

not materially aid the court’s decision, especially where defendants themselves cannot articulate

20

why oral argument is necessary) may be summarily denied and may result in sanctions, including

21

a potential entry of default judgment against defendants.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 29, 2011
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
4