Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00653/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00653-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint on July 24, 2015. (Doc. 

27) Plaintiff contends the motion should be stricken for failure to comply with Local Rule 131, which 

requires that all electronic filings be signed. (Doc. 28) According to Plaintiff, Defendant violated the 

Local Rules because there is “the Motion to Dismiss has no original signature,” and no proof of service 

was filed. (Id. at 2) 

Significantly, however, Defendant filed a proof of service indicating the motion to dismiss was 

served on Plaintiff by mail on July 23, 2015. (Doc. 27-1 at 1) Both the proof of service and the motion 

to dismiss bear electronic signatures. (See id; Doc. 27 at 5) Pursuant to Local Rule 131, electronic 

signatures are permitted when filing documents with the Court:

Anything filed using an attorney’s name, login, and password will be deemed to have 

been signed by that attorney for all purposes, including Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. For example, 

for the attorney whose login and password is being used, it is sufficient to indicate a 

signature as in the following example: “/s/ John M. Barrister, Esquire.”

Local Rule 131(c).

RICHARD WILLIFORD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PHILLIP HALL,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00653- KJM - JLT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

STRIKE THE MOTION TO DISMISS 

(Doc. 28)

Case 1:15-cv-00653-KJM-JLT Document 31 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Because the motion to dismiss and the proof of service were electronically signed, Defendant

complied with the requirements of Local Rule 131. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Doc. 28)

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00653-KJM-JLT Document 31 Filed 08/06/15 Page 2 of 2