Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00362/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00362-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for the filing of a response to

an answer: “There shall be a complaint and an answer; . . . . No other pleading shall be allowed,

except that the court may order a reply to an answer or a third-party answer.” FED. R. CIV. P.

7(a). The Court has not ordered a reply to Moore’s answer and such a reply will not be

permitted here. 

07cv362t

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIRGINIA REEDER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN KNAPIK dba K/MONT

CONSTRUCTION, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07-CV-362-L(LSP)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO

SUBMIT GROUP #10 EXHIBITS

[doc. #49]

On August 7, 2007, plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed an “ex parte application to submit

group #10 exhibits” to defendant Billie Moore’s answer to plaintiff’s first amended complaint. 

Plaintiff previously attempted to file a “traversal” and “Exhibit #10" to Moore’s answer but the

court rejected the document for failing to obtain leave of Court to file a response to the answer.1

[doc. #42]. 

Plaintiff’s current ex parte application seeks to have the same exhibits filed that were

attached to her stricken “traversal”. The current application contains a memorandum in support

of her application that is virtually identical to the “traversal” she attempted to file on July 9,

Case 3:07-cv-00362-L-LSP Document 50 Filed 08/13/07 Page 1 of 3
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 07cv362t

2007. [doc. #42]. Thus, plaintiff is attempting to get her stricken “traversal” before the Court by

filing the present memorandum in support of having certain exhibits filed. This blatant attempt

to circumvent the Court’s prior decision to strike the “traversal” amounts to bad faith and is a

mischief upon the Court that will not be tolerated. For this reason, plaintiff’s ex parte

application is denied.

Moreover, evidentiary materials should not be presented to the Court given the present

procedural posture of the case, i.e., all the defendants have not been served; there has been no

early neutral evaluation (“ENE”) or preliminary case management conference (“CMC”) and as a

result, no discovery is permitted to be requested absent leave of court; and there are no pending

motions that require an evidentiary presentation. Like all litigants in federal court, plaintiff must

await the ENE and CMC in order to go forward with this action. The ENE will be set after

August 24, 2007 – the previously extended time for plaintiff to effectuate service of process on

the remaining unserved defendants. (Order filed July 18, 2007 [doc. #46]). For this reason as

well, plaintiff’s ex parte application to “submit group #10 exhibits” is denied.

Plaintiff attention is again directed to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (See Order

filed July 18, 2007 [doc. #46]). As noted in that Order, the purpose of Rule 11 is to “curb

baseless filings ‘which abuse the judicial system and burden courts and parties with needless

expense and delay.’” (Order at 4 (quoting Judin v. United States, 110 F.3d 780, 784 (Fed. Cir.

1997)). Plaintiff’s current ex parte application is such a filing. Although plaintiff is appearing

pro se, she is must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Civil Local Rules. 

Further frivolous and/or bad faith filings will likely subject plaintiff to monetary and/or other

sanctions. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED denying plaintiff’s ex parte application to

submit group #10 exhibits [doc. #49].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 13, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00362-L-LSP Document 50 Filed 08/13/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3 07cv362t

COPY TO: 

HON. LEO S. PAPAS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-00362-L-LSP Document 50 Filed 08/13/07 Page 3 of 3