Schneider v. Bank of America N.A et al

Filing 62

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/24/2012 ORDERING 37 that plaintiff's motion to allow witness testimony, re-noticed before the undersigned on 1/20/2012, is DENIED. 50 (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CHRISTOPHER D. SCHNEIDER,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:11-cv-2953 LKK DAD PS

vs.
BANK OF AMERICA N.A., et al.,

14

ORDER

Defendants.

15

/

16

Plaintiff, Christopher Schneider, is proceeding in this action pro se. The case was

17

referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

18

Plaintiff has filed a motion to “allow witness testimony in support of his

19

preliminary injunction motion” scheduled to be heard before the undersigned on March 2, 2012.

20

(Doc. No. 37.)1 Therein, plaintiff asserts that he “feels that the two witness (sic); Amber Loiler

21

of El Dorado Savings Bank, and Margaret Doll formerly of Amador Title . . . are needed to

22

support” facts concerning the “dispute account” opened by plaintiff and “the events of January

23

30, 2001 regarding the deed of trust and note–issues that are bitterly disputed.” (Id. at 1.)

24
1

25
26

Plaintiff’s motion to allow witness testimony was initially noticed for hearing before
the assigned District Judge. (Doc. No. 37.) The assigned District Judge ordered plaintiff to renotice his motion for hearing before the undersigned, (Doc. No. 42), which plaintiff did on
January 20, 2012. (Doc. No. 50.)
1

1

Additionally, plaintiff asserts that he is willing to call a witness to substantiate the irreparable

2

harm “that continues to be sustained by him due to the acts of Defendants, though this witness

3

can made (sic) a declaration.” (Id. at 1-2.) Defendant Bank of America, N.A., has filed an

4

opposition to plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. No. 40.)

5

Local Rule 230(h) provides that:

6
7

Factual contentions involved in pretrial motions shall be initially
presented and heard upon affidavits, except that the Court may in
its discretion require or allow oral examination of witnesses.

8

Here, plaintiff has not presented an affidavit of any witness in connection with his

9

motion.2 It is not apparent that any witness is willing to testify at the scheduled hearing.3 Nor

10

has plaintiff alleged with any specificity the anticipated substance of the live testimony he seeks

11

to present. Most importantly, at this juncture, the court finds witnesses testimony unnecessary

12

for hearing of plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. If, after hearing argument on

13

plaintiff’s motion, the court determines that such testimony would be helpful in resolving the

14

motion , the court will re-visit plaintiff’s request.

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s January 9, 2012 motion

16

to allow witness testimony (Doc. No. 37), re-noticed before the undersigned on January 20, 2012,

17

(Doc. No. 50) is denied.

18

DATED: February 24, 2012.

19
20
21

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.pro se\schneider2953.mot.testimony.ord

22
23

2

Plaintiff, however, previously filed a declaration from Margaret Doll as part of his
motion for a temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 9 at 36-38.)

24
3

25
26

Plaintiff states in his motion that the El Dorado Savings Bank does not allow signed
declarations and will only release testimony if subpoenaed. (Doc. No. 37 at 2.) In this regard, it
appears that Amber Loiler, an employee of the El Dorado Savings Bank, would only testify if
subpoenaed.
2