Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al
Filing
1151
Declaration of Tharan Gregory Lanier in Support of 1150 Opposition/Response to Motion,, 1149 Opposition/Response to Motion, Declaration of Tharan Gregory Lanier in Support of Defendants' Oppositions to Oracle's Motions for Leave to File Motions for Reconsideration Regarding (1) Saved Development Costs and (2) Up-Sell and Cross-Sell Projections, and Motion for Clarification filed bySAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14)(Related document(s) 1150 , 1149 ) (Froyd, Jane) (Filed on 5/1/2012)
EXHIBIT 12
Page 1
JANETTA SCONIERS, Plaintiff, v. FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et
al., Defendants.
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00113-LJO-SMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122195
October 21, 2011, Decided
October 21, 2011, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Later proceeding at
Sconiers v. Judicial Council of Cal., 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 125152 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2011)
PRIOR HISTORY: Sconiers v. Judicial Council of Cal.,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82312 (E.D. Cal., July 26, 2011)
COUNSEL: [*1] For Janetta L Sconiers, Plaintiff:
Ralston L Courtney, LEAD ATTORNEY, Ralston L
Courtney, Attorney at Law, Coarsegold, CA.
JUDGES: Lawrence J. O'Neill, UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE.
OPINION BY: Lawrence J. O'Neill
Should Plaintiff and Attorney Courtney
elect to sign and re-file the complaint at a
later date, they are directed to review
carefully the representations that an
attorney or unrepresented plaintiff make to
the Court by signing a complaint
(F.R.Civ.P. 11(b)) and the potential
sanctions for misrepresentations to the
Court (F.R.Civ.P. 11(c)). Plaintiff and
Courtney may also wish to review and
carefully consider F.R.Civ.P. 8(a), which
requires that a complaint include short and
plain statements of the claim showing that
Plaintiff is entitled to relief. "Each
allegation must be simple, concise, and
direct." F.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1).
OPINION
Doc. 5.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF"S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN MAGISTRATE
JUDGE'S ORDERS
(Doc. 48)
On January 24, 2011, this Court struck the complaint
in this matter, which had been filed unsigned, and
directed:
Despite this clear warning that the complaint failed
to comply with the provisions of F.R.Civ.P. 8 and 11, on
March 10, 2011, Plaintiff, purportedly by her attorney
[*2] Ralston Courtney, filed the same overlong
complaint.
The Court has repeatedly scheduled hearings at
which it ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the
complaint should not be dismissed for failure to comply
Page 2
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122195, *2
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In lieu of
appearing and defending her position, Plaintiff has twice
filed interlocutory appeals to the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In each case, the
Ninth Circuit has dismissed the appeals for lack of
jurisdiction.
In an overlong and nearly incomprehensible motion,
Plaintiff has now filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Magistrate Judge's orders of March 14 (Order Denying
Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance of Order to Show
Cause Why Complaint Should Not Be Dismissed for
Failure to Prosecute) (Doc. 13); March 28 (Order
Granting Plaintiff's Motion For Stay Pending Appeal)
(Doc. 26); July 26 (Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion For
Stay Pending Appeal) (Doc. 39); and October 20, 2011
(Order Lifting Stay Following Dismissal by United States
Court of Appeals) (Doc. 46) and (Order Denying
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction as Moot)
(Doc. 47). Plaintiff's reason for focusing on these
particular motions [*3] has no apparent purpose other
than to challenge the authority of the Court. Two of the
motions granted a stay requested by Plaintiff herself; one
lifted a stay when the appeal that formed the basis for the
stay was dismissed. Two were "housekeeping motions":
one addressing Plaintiff's failure to amend her complaint
within a reasonable period of time after the Court struck
the original complaint, and one clearing motions for
preliminary injunctions that had become moot during the
pendency of Plaintiff's second interlocutory appeal in this
matter.
The court has inherent power to control its docket
and the disposition of its cases with economy of time and
effort for both the court and the parties. Landis v. North
American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, 57 S. Ct. 163, 81 L.
Ed. 153 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260
(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915, 113 S. Ct. 321, 121
L. Ed. 2d 242 (1992). Plaintiff and her attorney are
hereby warned that this Court will not tolerate continued
disrespect for the Court's authority and disregard for the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This warning will serve
as a predicate for sanctions.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is HEREBY
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 21, 2011
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED [*4] STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?