United States of America v. Molen et al

Filing 96

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/19/11 DENYING without prejudice 79 and 84 Motions to file amended answer; the hearing dates are VACATED. (Manzer, C)

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 two motions, a “Motion To File Amended

18

Answer” (Dkt. No. 84), and a “Motion To Amend Answer to Complaint” (Dkt. No. 79), both

19

requesting leave to amend their Answer (Dkt. No. 4).2 Plaintiff the United States of America (the

20
21

1

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

22
2

23
24
25
26

Defendants have already received warnings from this court regarding their obligation to
abide by the rules of litigation procedure, including their obligation to refrain from filing duplicative
motions. (E.g., Dkt. Nos. 60, 65.) Defendants are cautioned that their filings at Docket Numbers
79 and 84 are substantively duplicative. However, it is possible that defendants did not intentionally
violate the court’s order prohibiting duplicative motions, given that defendants erroneously noticed
the former motion before the incorrect judge and, after filing the latter motion, may not have
intended the former motion to remain at issue. While the undersigned gives defendants the benefit
of the doubt in this particular instance, the undersigned again reminds defendants that duplicative
1

1

“plaintiff”) filed a written opposition to the motions. (Dkt. No. 90.) Because oral argument

2

would not materially aid the resolution of the pending motions, these matters are submitted on

3

the briefs and record without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Local Rule 230(g). The

4

undersigned has fully considered the parties’ briefs and the record in this case and, for the

5

reasons that follow, the undersigned denies both of defendants’ motions. (Dkt. Nos. 79, 84.)

6

I.

7

BACKGROUND
On September 23, 2010, plaintiff filed its complaint against defendants, as well as

8

against defendants’ alleged trust and partnership entities. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) The complaint

9

alleges multiple failures to pay federal taxes by the defendants and the partnership. (Compl. ¶¶

10

17-18, 28, 30, 34, 36-41.) The complaint also alleges that the trust is both a sham and the

11

defendants’ alter ego, and plaintiff seeks to set aside the purported transfer of real property from

12

the defendants to the trust. (Id. ¶¶ 42-54, p. 13 ¶¶ D-E.) Plaintiff seeks foreclosure of tax liens

13

encumbering the defendants’ alleged real property in Butte County, California. (Id. at p. 13 ¶ I.)

14

Defendants filed a verified Answer to the complaint on November 15, 2010.

15

(Answer, Dkt. No. 4.) In that answer, defendants asserted defenses, including a lack of personal

16

jurisdiction, on behalf of themselves as individuals, as well as on behalf of entities (i.e., the trust

17

and the partnership). (Id. at 1-2, 5, 7, 8.) The portion of the Answer asserting defenses on behalf

18

of these entities has since been stricken. (Dkt. Nos. 26.)

19

II.

DISCUSSION

20

Defendants have been explicitly informed of their obligation to abide by the rules

21

of litigation procedure. (E.g., Dkt. Nos. 60, 65.) Defendants have also been reminded that their

22

obligation to comply with these rules, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this

23

court’s local rules, exists despite the fact that they are proceeding without counsel in this case.

24

(Dkt. Nos. 60 at 12 n.6; 65 at 3,12.) The undersigned notified defendants that their failure to

25
26

motions are prohibited and may result in summary denial(s) and/or sanctions.
2

1

comply with these rules could result in the summary denial of improperly-filed motions. (Dkt.

2

Nos. 60 at 12 n.6; 65 at 3, 12.)

3

Despite the foregoing, however, neither defendants’ Motion To File Amended

4

Answer (Dkt. No. 84) nor defendants’ Motion To Amend Answer to Complaint (Dkt. No. 79)

5

complies with the Eastern District Local Rules. In particular, Eastern District Local Rule 137(c)

6

provides, in pertinent part,

7
(c) Documents Requiring Leave of Court. If filing a
document requires leave of court, such as an amended
complaint after the time to amend as a matter of course has
expired, counsel shall attach the document proposed to be
filed as an exhibit to moving papers seeking such leave
and lodge a proposed order as required by these Rules.

8
9
10
11

E.D. Local Rule 137(c) (emphasis added); see generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); E.D. Local Rule

12

220. Here, defendants have already filed an Answer (Dkt. No. 4) and the time to file an answer

13

as a matter of course has expired (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)), yet defendants failed to attach a draft

14

amended Answer as an exhibit to their moving papers seeking leave to file such amended

15

Answer. See E.D. Local Rule 137(c). According to the applicable local rule, a request to amend

16

an Answer must be filed with a copy of the draft amended answer itself. Id.

17

Because defendants’ requests were not accompanied by a draft amended answer,

18

the court cannot properly gauge the propriety of the request. See id. Similarly, defendants’

19

moving papers fail to describe in any detail the sort(s) of amendment(s) defendants wish to make

20

to their Answer. (Dkt. No. 79 at 2 (stating that defendants seek leave to “amend their original

21

answer to reflect a clearer response to the Plaintiff’s pleading”, but offering no further detail

22

regarding the content of the proposed amendment(s)).) Accordingly, defendants’ motions (Dkt.

23

Nos. 79, 84) run afoul of Local Rule 137(c) and are therefore denied. Such denial is without

24

prejudice to refiling.

25

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

26

1.

Defendants’ “Motion To Amend Answer to Complaint” (Dkt. No. 79) is
3

1
2
3

denied without prejudice to refiling.
2.

Defendants’ “Motion To File Amended Answer” (Dkt. No. 84) is denied

without prejudice to refiling.

4

3.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

The hearing dates for these motions (Dkt. Nos. 79, 84) are vacated.

DATED: August 19, 2011

7
8
9

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4