National Association for the Advancement of Multijurisdiction Practice (NAAMJP) et al v. California Supreme Court et al

Filing 87

ORDER re: Application for Leave & Declaration of Joseph Robert Giannini, Esq. to File Lawsuit. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on February 14, 2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A1, # 3 Exhibit A2, # 4 Exhibit A3, # 5 Exhibit A4)(dle, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2013)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

TANESHA WALLS BLYE, et al.,

3:11–cv–5046–DWM

Plaintiffs,
vs.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT,
et al.,
Defendants.

Joseph Robert Giannini submitted directly to chambers documents attached
hereto as Exhibit A. Styled as an application for leave to file a lawsuit, the Court
could construe these documents as an ex parte motion. But Giannini has not
complied with the requirement that a party identify and affirmatively state
compliance with the statute, Federal Rule, Local Rule, or Standing Order that
authorizes the ex parte filing. L.R. 7-10. Therefore, the Court construes Giannini’s
submission of Exhibit A as a request to file the document on the record.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1)(D) requires service and filing of all written motions,
except those that may be heard ex parte. Since this document is not identified as
an ex parte filing, and although filing directly with the Court is improper absent

urgent circumstances and without a showing of good cause as required by L.R. 15(e), the Court submits the attached for filing to ensure orderly and expeditious
administration of justice. Portions of the document containing protected personal
identifiable information have been redacted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2.
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is HEREBY ORDERED to file Exhibit A
on the record in this matter. Responsive argument from Defendants regarding
these documents is neither requested nor expected.
DATED this 14th day of February, 2013.