Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00855/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00855-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINDA D. MORIARITY,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,

and DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00855-AWI-SMS

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S 

OPPOSITION

(Doc. 7)

On July 3, 2013, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and denied 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot. Doc. 6. Plaintiff was ordered to file, within 30 days of 

service (i.e., by August 2, 2013), either an amended complaint or notification of her willingness to 

proceed on the original complaint. Failure to comply could lead to dismissal of the action.

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court 

must strike this filing, both because Defendant’s motion has already been denied (as Plaintiff 

acknowledges), and also because the filing is inconsistent with the Court’s order. This is not a 

statement regarding the merits of Plaintiff’s arguments. Rather, the July 3, 2013 order simply does 

not permit the Court to consider these arguments, at this time or in this format. Plaintiff must comply 

with the Court’s July 3, 2013 order. The Court will then need additional time to consider any filing.

The Court takes this opportunity to observe that Plaintiff’s opposition often uses “scare 

quotes.” In contrast to quotation marks that quote another’s words or that identify a new term, “Scare 

quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to imply that it may not signify its 

Case 1:13-cv-00855-SMS Document 8 Filed 07/24/13 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

apparent meaning or that it is not necessarily the way the quoting person would express its concept.” 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes. For example, Plaintiff has used quotation marks around 

words such as “not,” “is,” “prior,” “any,” etc. As the definition suggests, scare quotes can make it 

difficult for the Court to understand the author’s intended argument. For this reason, and for the 

parties’ own benefit, the Court respectfully requests that this convention not be overused.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s opposition (doc. 7) is stricken. Plaintiff shall comply with the Court’s order of July 

3, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2013 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

icido34h

Case 1:13-cv-00855-SMS Document 8 Filed 07/24/13 Page 2 of 2