Tracy et al v. CEO, Successor, et al.,

Filing 182

ORDER denying 52 , 54 , 64 , 91 , 92 , 112 , 117 , 118 , 130 , 138 , 148 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 167 , 168 , 169 , and 173 Plaintiff's various motions syled motions to dismiss, motions to quash, and motions to strike. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 7/5/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
***
8

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

15

Before the court are various motions styled motions to dismiss, motions to quash, and

16

motions to strike filed by plaintiff Linwood Edward Tracy, Jr. (“Tracy”) which the court shall

17

construe as motions to strike.

18

I.

9

LINWOOD EDWARD TRACY, JR.; et al.,

10

PlaintiffS,

11

v.

12

CEO, SUCCESSOR FOR DEUTSCHE
NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY; et al.,

13
Defendants.

19

3:11-cv-0436-LRH-VPC
ORDER

Facts and Background
At its core, this is a wrongful foreclosure and wrongful taxation action. Plaintiff William

20

Gerald Fillion (“Fillion”) owned real property in California which was subject to state, county, and

21

city tax assessments. The tax assessments went unpaid and eventually the property was foreclosed

22

upon.

23

On June 21, 2011, plaintiffs filed a civil rights complaint against defendants for violation of

24

their First and Fourth Amendment rights. See Doc. #1. In particular, plaintiffs challenge the tax

25

assessments and foreclosure claiming that the property belonged to a non-profit organization.

26

Throughout this litigation, defendants have filed various motions, responses, and other

1

documents with the court. Additionally, the court has issued several orders in this action. Plaintiff

2

Tracy has filed the present motions seeking to strike these filings and orders.

3

II.

4

Discussion
In his motions, Tracy seeks to strike certain documents filed with the court because the

5

documents were not properly signed in accordance with the Local Rules. The court has reviewed

6

Tracy’s motions and finds they are without merit because the documents at issue were filed

7

electronically in accordance with the court’s Local Rules. Electronically filed documents are

8

considered properly signed when an authorized user uses a personal log-in and password. See

9

Special Order of the Court #109 (issued September 30, 2005) (“The filing of a document through

10

the use of an authorized user’s User Log-In and Password shall constitute the “signature” of that

11

attorney for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11”). Therefore, the court finds that there is no basis to

12

strike the appropriately filed documents.

13

Tracy also argues that certain documents should be stricken because he removed this action

14

to the Ninth Circuit. However, at the time all documents contested on the basis of jurisdiction were

15

filed, the Ninth Circuit had already dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, those

16

documents were also appropriately filed. Accordingly, the court shall deny all of Tracy’s motions to

17

strike.

18
19

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s various motions styled motions to dismiss,

20

motions to quash, and motions to strike (Doc. ##52, 54, 64, 91, 92, 112, 117, 118, 130, 138, 148,

21

159, 160, 161, 167, 168, 169, 173) are DENIED.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

DATED this 5th day of July, 2012.

24
__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
2