Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al
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)
JANETTA SCONIERS, Plaintiff, v. FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00113-LJO-SMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152225
December 13, 2011, Decided
December 13, 2011, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Later proceeding at
Sconiers v. Judicial Council of Cal., 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 3621 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 11, 2012)
Amended by, Substituted opinion at Sconiers v. Fresno
County Superior Court, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12115
(E.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2012)
Request denied by Sconiers v. Cal. Dep't of Soc. Servs.,
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24337 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 23, 2012)
PRIOR HISTORY: Sconiers v. Fresno County Superior
Court, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135442 (E.D. Cal., Nov.
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
OPINION BY: Lawrence J. O'Neill
RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT
COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH COURT RULES
On October 21, 2011, Magistrate Judge Sandra M.
Snyder ordered Plaintiff Janetta L. Sconiers and counsel
Ralston L. Courtney to appear at a hearing on November
16, 2011, to show cause why this matter should not be
dismissed for failure to comply with F.R.Civ.P. 8 and 11,
and sanctions imposed. Neither Plaintiff nor counsel
appeared. On November 23, 2011, the Magistrate Judge
filed Findings and Recommendations recommending that
this case be dismissed, counsel be fined and reprimanded,
and Plaintiff be declared a vexatious litigant subject to
On December 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed objections and
exhibits totaling 295 pages. Plaintiff's objections did not
address the application of F.R.Civ.P. 8 and 11 to the
complaint in this matter.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636
(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of
this case. [*2] Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be
supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
Findings and Recommendations, filed November 23,
2011, are adopted in full. Specifically,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152225, *2
1. This matter is hereby dismissed with
prejudice for failure to comply with
F.R.Civ.P. 8 and 11.
2. Plaintiff's attorney, Ralston
Courtney, is hereby sanctioned pursuant to
F.R.Civ.P. 11 for failing to conduct a
reasonable and competent inquiry
regarding (a) Plaintiff's motives for
proceeding with the complaint; (b) the
legal sufficiency of the asserted claims;
and (c) the factual sufficiency of the
asserted claims. As penalty, Courtney is
ordered, no later than January 14, 2012, to
3. Courtney is hereby reprimanded for
his conduct in this matter, which degraded
and impugned the integrity of this Court
and interfered with its administration of
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to
send a copy of this Order and the
Recommendations to Office of Chief Trial
Counsel/Intake, The State Bar of
California, 1149 South Hill Street, Los
Angeles, [*3] California 90015-2299.
5. Plaintiff Janetta Sconiers is hereby
sanctioned pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 11 for
her failure to conduct a reasonable and
competent inquiry regarding the legal and
factual sufficiency of her claims, and for
her determination to file repetitive claims
intended to harass the individuals named
a. Plaintiff is declared to
be a vexatious litigant.
b. On or after the date
of this order, Plaintiff shall
pay the filing fee in all
actions initiated in propria
persona or by legal counsel
on her behalf.
c. Upon presentation of
a complaint by Plaintiff or
any attorney acting on her
behalf in any action
initiated on or after the date
of the Court's order, the
Clerk of Court shall lodge
the complaint pending its
review by the Duty
Magistrate Judge to ensure
that the complaint is neither
frivolous nor malicious and
that it states claims
cognizable in this Court.
No complaint shall be filed
prior to such screening and
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 13, 2011
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED 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?