Jennings(s) v. Duke Partners II, LLC et al

Filing 22

ORDER imposing sanctions for failure to comply with LCR 10(e)(9), signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 SUZANNE JENNINGS 8 9 10 Plaintiff, Cause No. C17-0969RSL v. DUKE PARTNERS II, LLC, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LCR 10(e)(9) 13 14 15 This matter came before the Court sua sponte. On July 28, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion 16 which, taken as a whole, exceeded 50 pages in length (Dkt. # 10) but did not provide a courtesy 17 copy for the Court’s review as required by LCR 10(e)(9). The Court issued an order requiring 18 immediate delivery of a paper copy of the motion and all supporting documents and an 19 explanation for the failure to comply with the local rules. Dkt. # 13. Plaintiff has failed to 20 provide the courtesy copy: her response suggests that she has no intention of complying with the 21 local rules of this district because she believes the Court has no authority to hear this matter and 22 23 disputes the validity of the order to show cause. On June 27, 2017, three of the named defendants removed this case to federal court on the 24 ground that plaintiff had inserted a federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim into her 25 26 complaint for unlawful detainer. A review of the complaint confirms that plaintiff’s claim is, at ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LCR 10(e)(9) 1 least in part, based on an allegation that defendant Wells Fargo violated TILA. Dkt. # 1-1 at 6-7. 2 Plaintiff has now filed a motion for remand which is not yet fully briefed. In the context of that 3 4 5 motion, plaintiff argues that the “Prior Jurisdiction Doctrine” prevents a federal court from assuming jurisdiction over a state unlawful detainer or quiet title action (Dkt. # 10 at 2) but acknowledges that the complaint asserts limited federal issues over which the Court could 6 properly exercise jurisdiction. Dkt. # 10 at 4. At present, therefore, this matter is properly 7 8 9 10 pending in this jurisdiction and -- unless and until the Court grants plaintiff’s motion for remand -- the case is governed by the local rules of this district. The courtesy copy requirement of LCR 10(e)(9) applies to all litigants whose submissions 11 exceed fifty pages in length. Having declined to provide a courtesy copy as required, the Court 12 will read only the first fifty pages of plaintiff’s 1,380 page motion for remand and supporting 13 documents. Future failures to provide courtesy copies in a timely manner will similarly curtail 14 the Court’s review of plaintiff’s submissions to the first fifty pages. 15 16 17 DATED this 17th day of August, 2017. 18 A 19 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LCR 10(e)(9) -2-

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?