Anderson et al v. Echols et al

Filing 57

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 4/11/13 ORDERING that Defendants' MOTION for Summary Judgment 51 is STRIKEN; Defendants shall each SHOW CAUSE, separately in writing by 4/30/2013, why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule 11. The Court defers ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for leave to Amend 54 ; and This matter is set for a telephonic Status Conference on 4/17/13 at 11:00 a.m. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RON J. ANDERSON, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No. 2:11-CV-1795-CMK

vs.

ORDER

GREG ECHOLS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

/

17

Plaintiffs, who are proceeding pro se, bring this civil action for, among other

18

things, determination of ownership interests in the “Stringer Mine.” Pursuant to the written

19

consent of all parties, this case is before the undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes,

20

including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Pending before the court is

21

defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 51). Also before the court is plaintiffs’ motion

22

for leave to amend (Doc. 54).

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///
1

1

Defendants’ motion was noticed to be heard before the undersigned in Redding,

2

California, on March 28, 2013.1 See Doc. 51. The filed-endorsed copy of defendants’ notice of

3

motion and accompanying paperwork served on plaintiffs, however, specified a hearing to be

4

held on March 27, 2013. Plaintiffs, who appeared at the courthouse on March 27, 2013, pursuant

5

to the notice provided to them by defendants, submitted to the court their copy of defendants’

6

motion which shows the hearing date as March 27, 2013. The version of defendants’ motion

7

filed with the court shows a March 28, 2013, hearing date on the notice of motion, but a March

8

27, 2013, hearing date on the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities. Plaintiffs

9

again appeared, as did defendant Echols, on March 28, 2013, at which time defendant Echols

10

could not offer any explanation for the discrepancy between the hearing date set with the court

11

(per documents filed with the court) and the hearing date provided to plaintiffs (per documents

12

served on them).

13

Because defendants each signed their motion for summary judgment, Federal Rule

14

of Civil Procedure 11 applies to both of them. Rule 11(b) provides that, in signing motions filed

15

with the court, the signing party is representing to the court that the motion “is not being

16

presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly

17

increase the cost of litigation.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1). The court will direct defendants to

18

each show cause, separately, in writing why the court should not impose sanctions pursuant to

19

Rule 11 for purposefully misleading plaintiffs into attending a hearing on March 27, 2013,

20

thereby harassing plaintiffs, causing unnecessary delay in the litigation, and needlessly increasing

21

the cost of litigation for plaintiffs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3). In the meantime, defendants’

22

motion for summary judgment will be stricken.

23

///

24
1

25
26

This date was not one of the undersigned’s scheduled civil law and motion days
for March 2013 – March 13, 2013, and March 27, 2013. Despite the date not having been
cleared by the court’s courtroom deputy prior to serving and filing the motion, the court was
nonetheless available on March 28, 2013, and did not drop the hearing as improperly noticed.
2

1

Turning to plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend, the court defers ruling on that

2

motion pending plaintiffs’ election whether to withdraw that motion should they choose to stand

3

on the current complaint without amendment.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 51) is stricken;

6

2.

Defendants shall each show cause, separately in writing by April 30, 2013,

7

why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule 11;

8
9

3.

4.

This matter is set for a telephonic status conference on April 17, 2013, at

and

10
11

The court defers ruling on plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend (Doc. 54);

11:00 a.m.

12
13
14
15

DATED: April 11, 2013
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3