Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00836/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00836-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EDWARD RINGGOLD,

Plaintiff,

v.

BURGETT, INC., doing business as 

PIANODISC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-00836-DAD-CKD PS

ORDER

(ECF No. 46)

Plaintiff Edward Ringgold proceeds pro se with claims against his former employer,

Burgett, Inc., doing business as Pianodisc. (ECF No. 19, Operative First Amended Complaint.)

1

On March 28, 2023, the undersigned denied plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer, or, in 

the alternative, to require verification with declarations by the owners of Burgett, Inc. (ECF No. 

45.) In the present motion, plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the denial of the alternate request for 

relief requiring declarations signed under penalty of perjury for defendant’s answer. (ECF No. 

46.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the court takes the motion under submission on the record 

and briefs on file. The hearing set for May 10, 2023, is vacated. For the reasons set forth below, 

the motion for reconsideration is denied.

1 Because plaintiff proceeds pro se, this matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 

302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Case 2:22-cv-00836-DAD-CKD Document 49 Filed 04/28/23 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

“Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or 

accompanied by an affidavit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). As support for the requested relief, plaintiff 

cites section 446 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which states “[w]hen the complaint is 

verified, the answer shall be verified.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 446.

State procedural rules requiring that pleadings be verified do not apply to defendants’ 

answers filed in federal court. Curry v. New York City Police Dep’t, 726 F. Supp. 2d 258, 260 

(S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“To the extent [the state code of civil procedure] sets forth rules of procedure, 

such as the verification of pleadings, it is not applicable in federal court.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 11, Advisory Committee Note (1937 Adoption) (listing provisions of the United States Code 

and federal rules pursuant to which Rule 11 requires that a pleading be verified or accompanied 

by an affidavit). The procedure regarding verification of pleadings is governed by Rule 11, which 

explicitly does not require that pleadings be verified. Curry, 726 F. Supp. 2d at 260; see also Est. 

of Prasad ex rel. Prasad v. Cnty. of Sutter, 958 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1121 (E.D. Cal. 2013) 

(explaining that when the plain meaning of a federal rule conflicts with the California Code of 

Civil Procedure, the latter is “inapplicable in federal court”).

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration (ECF No. 46) is DENIED.

Dated: April 28, 2023

8.Ringgold22cv836.r11

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00836-DAD-CKD Document 49 Filed 04/28/23 Page 2 of 2