Sonntag v. Gurres et al

Filing 86

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr, on 5/13/2011. By Deputy Clerk: Colleen Larsen. IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Vacate 33 is DENIED; defendants' motion to strike 35 is GRANTED; Magistrate J udge's Report and Recommendation 58 is APPROVED AND ADOPTED and defendants Patterson, Miller, Gibson, Beng, Collier and Couzine are DISMISSED. Plaintiff's motion to strike 63 is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgm ent 64 is STRICKEN because it is reduncdant, and defendants' motion to strike 67 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion to strike 77 that motion and the Order granting an extension of time 74 is DENIED. Furthermore, the motions for judgme nt and for summary judgment 76 78 are also redundant of numerous previous filings that have been stricken or denied, and shall each be DENIED. Plaintiff has filed several documents all purporting to be motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff 9;s first motion for summary judgment 55 is pending. Plaintiff is hereby admonished to refrain from filing additional motions for summary judgment that are redundant of the motion for summary judgment 55 . (See order for specifics) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
RENO, NEVADA
JASON ERIC SONNTAG,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KENNETH GURRIES, et. al.,
Defendants.
PRESENT:
Deputy Clerk:

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:09-cv-00637-ECR-VPC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
DATE: May 12, 2011

EDWARD C. REED, JR.
COLLEEN LARSEN

U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Reporter:

NONE APPEARING

Counsel for Plaintiff(s)

NONE APPEARING

Counsel for Defendant(s)

NONE APPEARING

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS
Now pending are a number of motions. On October 28, 2010, Plaintiff
filed a “Motion to Vacate Order by Conflicted Magistrate Judge Pursuant to
FRCP 60b, FRCP 11, Fraud, Mistake, Motion for De Novo Review By Judge Reed
Pursuant to FRCP, Request for Restraining Order Against Magistrate Valerie
Cooke” (“Motion to Vacate”)(#33). Plaintiff requests reconsideration of
Magistrate Judge Cooke’s Order (#29) denying Plaintiff’s Motion to
Consolidate (#21) this action with a case that was dismissed on March 11,
2010 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On
November 1, 2010, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike (#35) the Motion to
Vacate (#33) on the basis that Magistrate Judge’s Order (#29) denying
Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate (#21) is not an appealable order pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and Plaintiff’s motion is
immaterial and impertinent, and Plaintiff’s request for a restraining order
against Magistrate Judge Cooke because he disagrees with her rulings is
entirely baseless.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate (#33) is hereby DENIED because, as
Magistrate Judge Cooke noted in her Order (#29), Plaintiff should “not be
permitted to resurrect” a case that was affirmed upon appeal as raising
questions that were entirely insubstantial, and because the Motion to
Vacate (#33) is otherwise groundless.

Defendants’ Motion to Strike (#35) is GRANTED.
On January 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment
(#55), which is not fully briefed and shall not be considered at this time.
The response to the motion for summary judgment is due on or before May 30,
2011, in accordance with Magistrate Judge Cooke’s Order (#74) granting
Defendants’ “Motion for Enlargement of Time in Which to Respond to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (#61).
On January 28, 2011, Magistrate Judge Cooke filed a Report and
Recommendation (#58) recommending that the Court dismiss Defendants
Patterson, Miller, Gibson, Beng, Collier, and Couzine because these
Defendants were not properly served, and Plaintiff was given notice of the
court’s intention to dismiss these Defendants. Plaintiff objected (#56) to
that notice stating that he served these Defendants through the Deputy
Attorney General, which does not constitute proper service pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). On February 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed
a motion entitled “Alternative Reply to Defendants’ Late Untimely
Opposition to Order Denying Dismissal, Motion to Strike as Roguley [sic]
Fugitive, Motion to Enter Summary Judgment for Plaintiff” (“Feb. 8 Motion”)
(## 63, 64). It is unclear whether Plaintiff intended the Feb. 8 Motion to
be, at least in part, an objection to the Report and Recommendation (#58),
but Plaintiff did reiterate that the Defendants were served by Susan Lee on
part of “all the Defendants.” Because the Report and Recommendation (#58)
is well-taken, it is hereby APPROVED and ADOPTED and Defendants Patterson,
Miller, Gibson, Beng, Collier and Couzine are DISMISSED from this action.
In response to Plaintiff’s Feb. 8 Motion to Strike (#63), Defendants
filed an Opposition (#66) stating that the Feb. 8 Motion “should be denied
because it appears [Plaintiff] is moving to strike a pleading that does not
exist.” (Opposition at 2 (#66).) In the Feb. 8 Motion, Plaintiff
requested that “the opposition to order to dismiss should be stricken” for
redundancy. (Feb. 8 Motion at 4 (#63).) Defendants have not filed an
opposition to any order to dismiss, and Plaintiff does not identify which
document he is referring to. Plaintiff’s motion to strike (#63) is hereby
DENIED.
Plaintiff further requests summary judgment as part of the Feb. 8
Motion, separately docketed as #64, which is redundant of his motion for
summary judgment (#55), still pending and not fully briefed. Defendants
filed a “Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s ‘Motion to Enter Summary Judgment for
Plaintiff’” (#67) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (## 63, 64) is also almost
identical to Plaintiff’s “Petition for Entry of Summary Judgment and Writ
of Execution” (#59), which was stricken by Magistrate Judge Cooke in her
2

Order (#84). Plaintiff’s first motion for summary judgment (#55) is still
pending and not fully briefed, and Defendants have until May 30, 2011 to
respond. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (#64) is
hereby STRICKEN because it is redundant, and Defendants’ motion to strike
(#67) is GRANTED.
On March 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Judgment on
Pleadings, Strike Motions of/to Rogue Conspiracy, Entry of Summary
Judgment, Opposition to Defendants Moot Motions 70 & 71?” which is one
document docketed as ## 76, 77, 78, 79. Plaintiff claims that “he was
never served the Defendants’ motion, #61, for extension of time, as such it
should be denied and stricken as frivolous and fraudulent.” Plaintiff does
not set forth any basis upon which he could have successfully opposed the
motion for extension of time (#61), and therefore his motion to strike
(#77) that motion and the Order granting an extension of time (#74) is
DENIED. Furthermore, the motions for judgment and for summary judgment
(##76, 78) are also redundant of numerous previous filings that have been
stricken or denied, and shall each be DENIED.
Plaintiff has filed several documents all purporting to be motions for
summary judgment. Plaintiff’s first motion for summary judgment (#55) is
pending. Plaintiff is hereby admonished to refrain from filing additional
motions for summary judgment that are redundant of the motion for summary
judgment (#55).

LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By

3

/s/
Deputy Clerk