Leskinen v. Halsey et al

Filing 83

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/25/11 ORDERING that plaintiff's ex parte request for permission to use a table format in part of her written opposition to the Nemeth Defendants' motion to dismiss 82 is DENIED as mo ot. Plaintiff's ex parte request for an order of the court prohibiting any of the defendants from filing any motions during the month of September 2011 80 is DENIED. Plaintiff's ex parte request to continue the hearing on the Nemeth Defen dants' motion to dismiss from 9/8/11, to 9/15/11 80 is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. Plaintiff's request that the court continue the 9/15/11 hearing on the motion to dismiss 45 to 9/22/11 is DENIED as moot. The court, on its own motion, continues the 9/15/11 hearing on Warner and Landstar's motion to 10/6/11. Plaintiff shall file a reply to Warner and Landstar's motion to dismiss based on the current hearing date of 10/6/11. Plaintiffs request that the court enter an order providing that the defendants in this case be relieved from serving their respective responsive pleadings or other responses to plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint on the other defendants 43 is DENIED. Plaintiff's request for a court order directing the U.S. Marshal to serve the summons and Second Amended Complaint on defendants Mike Carroll and Marketplace Realty 79 is DENIED. However, plaintiff shall have an additional 90 days from 9/5/11, to effectuate service on defendants Mike Carroll and Marketplace Realty. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

LAURA LESKINEN,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,

No. 2:10-cv-03363 MCE KJN PS

v.
CAROLYN A. HALSEY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

15
16
17
18

Presently before the court are several ex parte requests or ex parte motions filed
by plaintiff. Each request or motion is addressed below.
First, plaintiff requests permission from the court to use a “table format” in part of

19

her already-filed, 27-page opposition (excluding exhibits) to the motion to dismiss filed by

20

defendants Joe Nemeth and Pinks, Arbeit, and Nemeth (“Nemeth Defendants”). (See Dkt.

21

Nos. 42, 78, 82.) Plaintiff need not seek leave of court to use such a format. Accordingly,

22

plaintiff’s request is denied as moot.

23

Second, plaintiff requests an order of the court prohibiting any of the defendants

24

from filing any motions during the month of September 2011. (Dkt. No. 80.) Many of the 14

25

named defendants recently filed motions to dismiss on jurisdictional and venue grounds, or

26

notices of joinder in such motions. (Dkt. Nos. 26-31, 42, 45, 55, 57, 65, 67, 69, 71-73.)
1

1

Plaintiff’s ex parte request is summarily denied. Plaintiff chose to sue 14 defendants, and

2

plaintiff has cited no legal basis to prevent these defendants from defending themselves in this

3

action, including by the filing of pleadings-based motions permitted under the Federal Rules of

4

Civil Procedure. Curiously, plaintiff makes this request despite having filed at least 13 motions

5

or requests between July 21, 2011, and August 23, 2011. (Dkt. Nos. 43, 46-50, 56, 61, 63, 76,

6

79, 80, 82.)

7

Third, plaintiff requests that the hearing on the Nemeth Defendants’ motion to

8

dismiss be continued from September 8, 2011, to September 15, 2011. (Dkt. No. 80.) Plaintiff is

9

concerned that defendants Robert Whitman, Sr., Robert Whitman, Jr., and Carolyn Halsey filed

10

notices of joinder in the Nemeth Defendants’ motion on August 15, 2011. (Dkt. Nos. 65, 67,

11

69.) Plaintiff’s request is denied only as to the Nemeth Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

12

However, because Robert Whitman, Sr., Robert Whitman, Jr., and Carolyn Halsey filed their

13

notices of joinder in violation of the proper notice period provided in Local Rule 230, plaintiff

14

need not separately respond to those defendants’ notices of joinder in advance of the September

15

8, 2011 hearing. In any event, Robert Whitman, Sr., Robert Whitman, Jr., and Carolyn Halsey

16

previously noticed a hearing on their respective motions to dismiss—filed separately from their

17

notices of joinder in the Nemeth Defendants’ motion—that will take place on October 6, 2011.

18

(Dkt. Nos. 26-31, 57.) Plaintiff shall file written oppositions or statements of non-opposition to

19

the Whitmans’ and Halsey’s motions in accordance with Local Rule 230 and based on the current

20

hearing date of October 6, 2011.

21

Fourth, plaintiff requests that the court continue the September 15, 2011 hearing

22

date on the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Ken Warner and Landstar Title Agency, Inc.

23

(“Landstar”) to September 22, 2011. (Dkt. Nos. 45, 80.) For the sake of efficiency, the

24

undersigned continues the September 15, 2011 hearing on its own motion. The September 15,

25

2011 hearing on Warner and Landstar’s motion to dismiss shall be heard on October 6, 2011,

26

along with nine other motions to dismiss that are presently scheduled to be heard on October 6,
2

1

2011. Plaintiff shall file a written opposition or statement of non-opposition to Warner and

2

Landstar’s motion to dismiss in accordance with Local Rule 230 and based on the current hearing

3

date of October 6, 2011. In light of the continued hearing date, plaintiff’s request is denied as

4

moot.

5

Fifth, plaintiff requests that the court enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of

6

Civil Procedure 5(c)(1)(A), providing that the defendants in this case be relieved from serving

7

their respective pleadings and responses to plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint on the other

8

defendants. (Dkt. No. 43.) Plaintiff’s request is denied because several of the defendants

9

appearing in this case are proceeding without counsel and do not receive electronic service of the

10

filings in this case through the court’s CM/ECF filing system.

11

Finally, plaintiff requests an order of the court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

12

Procedure 4(c)(3), directing the U.S. Marshal to serve the summons and Second Amended

13

Complaint on defendants Mike Carroll and Marketplace Realty. (Dkt. No. 79.) Plaintiff seeks

14

this relief on the grounds that: (1) “the Suffolk County, NY Sheriff’s Department has been

15

derelict in their contracted duty to serve those defendants;” and (2) the 120-day time limit for

16

service of the summons and complaint will expire on September 5, 2011. Rule 4(c)(3) provides:

17

“At the plaintiff’s request, the court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or

18

deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court. The court must so order if the

19

plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.

20

4(c)(3). As an initial matter, plaintiff’s status as a party proceeding in forma pauperis was

21

revoked after plaintiff paid the required filing fee in this case1 (Order, June 8, 2011, Dkt. No. 17),

22

and, as a result, the court is not under a mandatory obligation to order service by the U.S.

23

Marshal. Additionally, plaintiff has not demonstrated why she cannot effectuate service by

24

means other than the U.S. Marshal, such as a private process server. Accordingly, plaintiff’s

25
1

26

Plaintiff voluntarily paid the $350 filing fee despite previously declaring under penalty
of perjury that she was unable to pay the fee or provide security for the fee.
3

1

request for an order directing the U.S. Marshal to serve the summons and Second Amended

2

Complaint on defendants Mike Carroll and Marketplace Realty is denied. However, for good

3

cause shown, the undersigned extends the time for service provided in Rule 4(m), and plaintiff

4

shall have an additional 90 days from September 5, 2011, to effectuate service on defendants

5

Mike Carroll and Marketplace Realty.

6

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

Plaintiff’s ex parte request for permission to use a “table format” in part of

8

her written opposition to the Nemeth Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 82) is denied as

9

moot.

10
11
12

2.

Plaintiff’s ex parte request for an order of the court prohibiting any of the

defendants from filing any motions during the month of September 2011 (Dkt. No. 80) is denied.
3.

Plaintiff’s ex parte request to continue the hearing on the Nemeth

13

Defendants’ motion to dismiss from September 8, 2011, to September 15, 2011 (Dkt. No. 80) is

14

granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s request is denied as to the Nemeth Defendants, and

15

the Nemeth Defendants’ motion to dismiss will remain on calendar for September 8, 2011.

16

However, plaintiff need not separately respond to the untimely notices of joinder in the Nemeth

17

Defendants’ motion filed by defendants Robert Whitman, Sr., Robert Whitman, Jr., and Carolyn

18

Halsey. Separately filed motions to dismiss filed by the Whitmans and Halsey are presently set

19

for a hearing date of October 6, 2011, and plaintiff shall file written oppositions or statements of

20

non-opposition to the Whitmans’ and Halsey’s motions in accordance with Local Rule 230 and

21

based on the current hearing date of October 6, 2011.

22

4.

Plaintiff’s request that the court continue the September 15, 2011 hearing

23

on the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Ken Warner and Landstar Title Company to

24

September 22, 2011 (Dkt. No. 45) is denied as moot. The court, on its own motion, continues

25

the September 15, 2011 hearing on Warner and Landstar’s motion to October 6, 2011. Plaintiff

26

shall file a written opposition or statement of non-opposition to Warner and Landstar’s motion to
4

1

dismiss in accordance with Local Rule 230 and based on the current hearing date of October 6,

2

2011.

3

5.

Plaintiff’s request that the court enter an order providing that the

4

defendants in this case be relieved from serving their respective responsive pleadings or other

5

responses to plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint on the other defendants (Dkt. No. 43) is

6

denied.

7

6.

Plaintiff’s request for a court order directing the U.S. Marshal to serve the

8

summons and Second Amended Complaint on defendants Mike Carroll and Marketplace Realty

9

(Dkt. No. 79) is denied. However, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and for

10

good cause shown, plaintiff shall have an additional 90 days from September 5, 2011, to

11

effectuate service on defendants Mike Carroll and Marketplace Realty.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 25, 2011

14
15
16

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5