Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01798/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01798-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen 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

08cv1798

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WARREN BRAD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIMOTHY WENNES, et al.,

Defendants .

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv1798-L(JMA)

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH [doc. #17]

Defendants Timothy Wennes; Countrywide Bank, FSB; Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.;

Countrywide Financial Corporation; and Bank of America (collectively “defendants”) filed a

motion to dismiss or alternatively for a more definite statement [doc. #5] to which plaintiff has

responded in opposition [doc. #8]. After the motion was fully briefed, plaintiff Warren Brad

Johnson, who is proceeding pro se, sent an “affidavit of truth” to the Clerk of the Court for filing

in the above-captioned case. In reviewing plaintiff’s “affidavit of truth”, the Court noted that

plaintiff failed to seek leave of Court to supplement his opposition and failed to file a certificate

of service indicating that he served opposing counsel with his “affidavit of truth.” Plaintiff was

admonished that he must serve upon defendants or, if appearance has been entered by counsel,

upon defendants’ counsel, a copy of every pleading or document submitted for consideration by

the Court and that he was required to include with the original paper to be filed with the Clerk of

the Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy of any document was

Case 3:08-cv-01798-L-JMA Document 25 Filed 11/17/08 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 08cv1798

served on defendants or counsel for defendants and the date of service. 

Notwithstanding these deficiencies, the Court allowed the filing of the “affidavit of truth” 

“so long as plaintiff files a certificate of service that attests to the fact that defendants’ counsel

has been served with his ‘affidavit of truth.’” (Order filed November 5, 2008 [doc. #14].) 

Plaintiff was ordered to “serve opposing counsel with his ‘affidavit of truth’ and file with the

Clerk of the Court a certificate of service attesting to such service on defendants’ counsel within

five days of the filing of this Order.” Id. Plaintiff was further warned that “[f]ailure to serve

opposing counsel and to file a certificate of service with respect to the ‘affidavit of truth’ within

the time provided shall result in the ‘affidavit of truth’ being stricken from the record.” Plaintiff

has not filed a certificate of service showing service of his “affidavit of truth” on opposing

counsel within the time provided by the Court. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED striking plaintiff’s “affidavit of truth” from

the record [doc. #17]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 17, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. JAN M. ADLER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-01798-L-JMA Document 25 Filed 11/17/08 Page 2 of 2