Choudhuri v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al

Filing 64

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING 50 Request for Permission to E-File, STRIKING 51 Motion to Dismiss; STRIKING 57 Motion to Dismiss; STRIKING 60 Motion to Strike. Motion Hearing set for 10/25/11 at 1:00 PM; Motion due 08/09/11; Opposition due 08/23/11; Reply due 08/30/11. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 07/18/11 (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2011) Modified on 7/20/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

OAKLAND DIVISION

10

KABITA CHOUDHURI,

Case No: C 11-00518 SBA

11

Plaintiff,

ORDER

12

vs.
13

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; CIT GROUP,
14 INC.; FIRST AMERICAN LOAN STAR;

DEUTSCHE BANK USA; TODD BELL
15 AND MEG DEGROOTE,

Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

19

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO E-FILE
Pro se Plaintiff Kabita Choudhuri has filed a request for permission to e-file,

20

claiming that it is too burdensome for her to drive from her home in Mill Valley, California,

21

to Oakland, to file papers in this action. Dkt. 8. However, Plaintiff is not required to file

22

her papers in person, and is free to mail her filings to the Court Clerk. Accordingly,

23

Plaintiff’s request for permission to e-file is denied.

24

II.

25

DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE MEET AND CONFER
REQUIREMENT

26

The Court’s Standing Orders require the parties to meet and confer prior to filing

27

any motion, and to certify that they have complied with this requirement. The Court’s

28

Standing Orders, which all parties received on March 10, 2011, state, in relevant part:

Meet and Confer Requirement: All parties are expected to
meet and confer before filing any motion before the Court. The
motion and any other non-stipulated request shall include a
certification, which may be included in the body of the
document, that the parties have complied with the meet and
confer requirement. The Court may disregard any papers
submitted that do not comply with this rule.

1
2
3
4
5
6

Dkt. 17 at 2 (emphasis added).
For the meet and confer obligations to serve their purpose, it is essential “that parties

7

treat the informal negotiation process as a substitute for, and not simply a formal

8

prerequisite to, judicial review of discovery disputes.” Nevada Power v. Monsanto, 151

9

F.R.D. 118, 120 (D.Nev. 1993). Judicial intervention should only occur when either

10

informal negotiations have reached an impasse on the substantive issues in dispute, or one

11

party has acted in bad faith by either refusing to negotiate or provide specific support for its

12

claims. Id.

13

On July 11, 2011, Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Deutsche Bank USA, Todd

14

S. Bell and Meg DeGroote (collectively “WFB Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss,

15

which they noticed for hearing on October 18, 2011. In their motion, WFB Defendants

16

allege: “The undersigned counsel attempted to have Plaintiff dismiss the claims against

17

Moving Defendants before filing this motion by means of an email to Plaintiff on July 8,

18

2011. There was no response to that email by the time this motion was filed.” Def.’s Mot.

19

to Dismiss at 1, Dkt. 51.

20

On July 15, 2011, Vericrest Financial, Inc., successor in interest to The CIT

21

Group/Consumer Finance, Inc. (erroneously sued as The CIT Group) and CIT Group Inc.

22

(collectively “CIT Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike, which

23

they noticed for hearing on August 23, 2011, a date which the Court’s on-line calendar

24

indicates is unavailable. Dkt. 57, 60.1 There is no certification in either motion that the

25

CIT Defendants met and conferred with Plaintiff prior to filing their motions.

26
27
28

1

The Clerk subsequently continued the motion to October 25, 2011. Dkt. 63.
-2-

1

The Court finds that neither the WFB Defendants nor the CIT Defendants properly

2

satisfied the Court’s meet and confer requirement prior to filing their respective motions.

3

The WFB Defendants merely sent Plaintiff a single email on July 8, 2011, and filed their

4

motion three days later after failing to receive a response from Plaintiff. At a minimum,

5

Defendants should have made a further effort to contact her by telephone or mail. With

6

respect to the CIT Defendants, there is no indication that they made any effort whatsoever

7

to meet and confer with Plaintiff prior to filing their motions. Accordingly, the Court finds

8

that Defendants filed their motions in contravention of the Court’s Standing Orders, and

9

therefore, disregards the motions. The Court, however, will afford the Defendants an

10

opportunity to refile their motions, if necessary, after they first meet and confer in good

11

faith with Plaintiff. Accordingly,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

13

1.

Plaintiff’s request for permission to e-file is DENIED.

14

2.

WFB Defendants and CIT Defendants’ respective motions shall be

15

STRICKEN from the record. Specifically, the Clerk shall strike the following documents:

16

Dkt. 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62.

17

3.

Should Defendants desire to renew their motions, they shall first conduct a

18

face-to-face or telephonic meet and confer regarding all issues to be adjudicated in each

19

such motion and certify in writing that they have done so. Any renewed motion and

20

opposition thereto may not exceed fifteen (15) pages and the reply may not exceed ten (10)

21

pages. CIT Defendants’ motions to dismiss and strike shall be set forth in a single

22

memorandum, subject to the foregoing page limits. Any renewed motion shall be filed by

23

no later than August 9, 2011; any opposition shall be filed by August 23, 2011; and any

24

reply shall be filed by August 30, 2011. The hearing on Defendants’ renewed motions, if

25

filed, will take place on October 25, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

26

Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court may adjudicate some or all of the

27

motions without oral argument. The parties are advised to consult the Court’s website to

28

determine whether an appearance is necessary. The Case Management Conference will
-3-

1

follow the hearing on the motions. However, in the event the Court adjudicates the motions

2

without oral argument, the Case Management Conference will be continued accordingly, if

3

appropriate.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 18, 2011

_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
CHOUDHURI et al,
4
Plaintiff,
5
v.
6
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. et al,
7

Defendant.
/

8
9

Case Number: CV11-00518 SBA
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
11
12

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.

13
14
15

That on July 19, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18
19

Kabita Choudhuri
331 Richardson Way
Mill Valley, CA 94941

20
Dated: July 19, 2011
21

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-