Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01001/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01001-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH MILLHOLEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT BOSCH TOOL 

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-1001-MCE-KJN PS

ORDER

Plaintiff commenced the instant action on July 16, 2014, in the Solano County Superior 

Court. (ECF No. 1.) After defendant was served with process on April 10, 2015, it removed the 

action to federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction on May 8, 2015. (Id.) 

On May 15, 2015, defendant also filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending. (ECF No. 

5.)

A review of plaintiff’s complaint reveals that it fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 11. That rule states, in part, that: “Every pleading, written motion, and other paper 

must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name—or by a party personally 

if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer’s address, e-mail address, and 

telephone number.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). In this case, plaintiff’s complaint is signed by “Ray 

Padilla, Esq., for Joseph Millholen, In Pro Per.” Based on that signature, it appears that plaintiff 

Case 2:15-cv-01001-MCE-DB Document 8 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 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

2

is proceeding without counsel, but has not signed the complaint himself; Mr. Padilla, who is 

ostensibly an attorney, signed the complaint, but is not counsel of record.

In light of the complaint’s failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), 

the court dismisses plaintiff’s complaint, but with leave to amend. If plaintiff elects to file an 

amended complaint, it shall be captioned “First Amended Complaint” and shall be either (a)

signed by plaintiff himself if he is proceeding without counsel or (b) signed by an attorney who 

enters an appearance as counsel of record for plaintiff. Furthermore, any first amended complaint 

shall comply with the general rules of pleading outlined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

including, but not limited to, Rules 8, 9, 10, and 11. Although the court liberally construes the 

pleadings of pro se litigants, they are required to abide by all procedural rules. Finally, plaintiff 

is cautioned that California Judicial Council forms are for use in state court, and should not be 

used in any amended complaint or other filings in federal court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.

2. No later than June 17, 2015, plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint in 

accordance with this order. Alternatively, if plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue the 

action at this time, he may instead file a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action 

without prejudice no later than June 17, 2015.

3. Failure to timely file either a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary 

dismissal will be deemed to be plaintiff’s consent to dismissal of the action pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and will result in a recommendation of such 

dismissal.

4. Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is denied without prejudice as 

moot, and the hearing set for 06/25/15 at 10 a.m. is vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 20, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-01001-MCE-DB Document 8 Filed 05/20/15 Page 2 of 2