Federal National Mortgage Association v. Willis et al
ORDER that 174 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is STRICKEN. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/9/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
Case No. 2:15-CV-2366 JCM (GWF)
CLARENCE MOSES WILLIS, et al.,
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Presently before the court is defendant Ernest Aldridge’s second motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 174).
“Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney
of record in the attorney’s name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11(a). “An electronic signature may be either in the form of ‘/s/ [name]’ or a facsimile of
a handwritten signature.” LR IC 5-1(a). “The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the
omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11(a); see also LR IC 7-1 (“The court may strike documents that do not comply with these
Further, motions must be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities. LR 72(a). “The failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support of the motion
constitutes a consent to the denial of the motion.” LR 7-2(d).
On September 21, 2016, the court denied defendant’s first motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction (ECF No. 47), holding that plaintiff met its burden to show that the
present matter was properly in federal court. (ECF No. 114 at 4–6). In that order, the court
considered the merits of defendant’s motion despite finding that defendant’s motion failed to
provide a memorandum of points and authorities. (ECF No. 114 at 4).
In the instant motion, defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction for the second time. (ECF No. 174). Defendant has failed to properly sign the instant
motion in accordance with the local and federal rules. As such, the instant motion must be stricken.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).
Notwithstanding, defendant has consented to the denial of his motion by, again, failing to
provide a memorandum of points and authorities. Further, defendant has failed to set forth any
new circumstance or argument regarding subject matter jurisdiction or the lack thereof.
Further, and in light of defendant’s repeated noncompliance with the local and federal
rules, the court reminds defendant that although he is pro se, defendant is nonetheless bound by
the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th
Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”);
see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although we construe pleadings
liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.”); Jacobsen v. Filler,
790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[P]ro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be
treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record.”). As such, defendant shall ensure
that all future filings comply with the applicable local and federal rules and is cautioned that future
noncompliant filings will be stricken and may subject him to sanctions.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Ernest Aldridge’s motion to dismiss (ECF No.
174) be, and the same hereby is, STRICKEN.
DATED March 9, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
James C. Mahan
U.S. 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?