Jack v. Jack

Filing 21

ORDER Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 8/16/2012. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
JOSEPH ROLANDO JACK,

12
13

Plaintiff(s),

No. C 12-02459 DMR
ORDER

v.

14

LORETTA JACK,

15

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

16
17

The court is in receipt of Plaintiff's letter of August 16, 2012. [Docket No. 20.] The court

18

recognizes that Defendant has appeared by letter and thereby consented to the Court's exercise of

19

personal jurisdiction over her. However, because Defendant is proceeding pro se and from her own

20

statements has indicated that she learned of this action from a non-party and remains ignorant of the

21

nature of the suit filed against her, [see Docket No. 17], the court ordered Plaintiff to serve her with

22

a copy of the complaint and other documents filed to date, [Docket No. 19]. That Defendant filed

23

the letter, which the court construed as a motion to dismiss,1 does not affect the validity of the court

24

order. It remains operative and binding upon Plaintiff. See Colaprico v. Sun Microsys., Inc., No.

25
26
27
28

1

Due to Defendant's pro se status, the court must "construe liberally [her] filings and motions."
Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212 (9th
Cir.2007)). Defendant does not, as Plaintiff contends, argue the merits of the case in her letter; rather,
she makes general, anticipatory arguments that she hopes will convince the court to dismiss the action.
Nevertheless, the court used its discretion to treat Defendant's letter and its attached documents as a
motion to dismiss.

1

90-20610 SW, 1994 WL 514029, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 1994) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 401;

2

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991)).

3

The court also instructs Plaintiff that he must serve Defendant with filings, past and future,

4

made in this case in accordance with Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To wit,

5

Plaintiff must file a Certificate of Service with the Court attesting to the service of these filings upon

6

Defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d); N.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 5-5. Indicating on a document that it was

7

Cced to Defendant, [see Docket Nos. 18, 20], does not comport with this requirement:

8
9

11
N.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 5-5(a). The court ORDERS Plaintiff to properly file proofs of service as
12
mandated by this court's previous orders and the Court Rules.
13
In Plaintiff's August 16, 2012 letter, he also contends that copies of the order which the court
14
ordered Plaintiff to file are available in Defendant's motion to dismiss. The copy of that order in
15
Defendant's submission – the May 9, 2012 Order Denying Petition for Appointment of Probate
16
Conservator of Person and Estate of Raymond Jack, Sr. – is fragmentary. [Docket No. 10 Attach
17
12.] Plaintiff must comply with the court's order to produce this document, [Docket No. 19].
18
Upon receipt of this order, Plaintiff shall serve Defendant with a copy and file proof of
19
service with the Court.
20

S

ER

H

26
27
28

2

R NIA

FO

RT

25

DONNA M. RYU a M. Ryu
onn
United dge DMagistrate Judge
JuStates

NO

24

LI

Dated: August 16, 2012
23

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

A

22

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

IT IS SO ORDERED.
21

UNIT
ED

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Whenever any pleading or other paper presented for filing is required (or permitted
by any rule or other provision of law) to be served upon any party or person, unless it
is served by ECF, it must bear or have attached to it: (1) An acknowledgment of
service by the person served; or (2) Certificate of service stating the date, place and
manner of service and the names street address or electronic address of the persons
served, certified by the person who made service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746.

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C