Kochel v. Target National Bank et al

Filing 9

ORDER - First of all, on November 8, 2010, the Court struck Plaintiff's Notice of Removal and ordered Plaintiff to file with this Court, not later than November 15, 2010, a certificate that she had filed a copy of that Order with each of the sta te courts from which a removal had been attempted. No such certificate has been filed. The Court takes this extremely seriously as a Notice of Removal interferes with the ordinary process of the state courts. Therefore the required certificate must b e filed forthwith. If it is not, Plaintiff may be found in contempt of court for failure to obey a direct order. Second, Plaintiff has asked for a list of incoming phone calls to her number 937-236-2305 from her telephone company, AT&T (Doc. No. 8). AT&T is not a party to this case and no discovery in the case has been scheduled because, so far as the docket shows, there has been no service on the parties. Plaintiff should request this list from AT&T. If they decline to provide it without a court order, the Plaintiff may apply to the Court for such an order after service on the other parties and a scheduling conference. The present request is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/23/2010. (kpf1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
PAMELA T. KOCHEL, Plaintiff, -vsTARGET NATIONAL BANK, et al., Defendant. ORDER This case is before the Court for two purposes. First of all, on November 8, 2010, the Court struck Plaintiff's Notice of Removal and ordered Plaintiff to file with this Court, not later than November 15, 2010, a certificate that she had filed a copy of that Order with each of the state courts from which a removal had been attempted. No such certificate has been filed. The Court takes this extremely seriously as a Notice of Removal interferes with the ordinary process of the state courts. Therefore the required certificate must be filed forthwith. If it is not, Plaintiff may be found in contempt of court for failure to obey a direct order. Second, Plaintiff has asked for a list of incoming phone calls to her number 937-236-2305 from her telephone company, AT&T (Doc. No. 8). AT&T is not a party to this case and no discovery in the case has been scheduled because, so far as the docket shows, there has been no service on the parties. Plaintiff should request this list from AT&T. If they decline to provide it without a court order, the Plaintiff may apply to the Court for such an order after service on the other parties and a scheduling conference. The present request is denied. November 23, 2010. : Case No. 3:10-cv-384 District Judge Thomas M. Rose Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

:

s/ Michael R. Merz United States Magistrate Judge

1

2