Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02753/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02753-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE WHITE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

EMIL VILLA’S CALIFORNIA BBQ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-05-2753 MMC

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT

BRICKELL ENTERPRISES, INC.’S

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM

On August 12, 2005, defendant Brickell Enterprises, Inc. (“Brickell”) electronically

filed an answer and a separately-filed counterclaim. Brickell violated General Order 45 and

the Court’s standing orders, however, by failing to deliver to the Clerk’s Office “no later than

noon on the business day following the day that the papers are filed electronically, one

paper copy of each document that is filed electronically . . . marked ‘Chambers Copy’ and .

. . clearly marked with the judge’s name, case number, and ‘Chambers Copy-Do Not File.’”

See General Order 45 § VII.G; see also Standing Orders For Civil Cases Assigned to The

Honorable Maxine M. Chesney ¶ 2.

In an order filed August 19, 2005, the Court ordered Brickell to immediately submit a

chambers copy of its answer and counterclaim, and warned Brickell that if it failed in the

future to comply with the Court’s order to submit chambers copies of electronically-filed

documents, the Court would consider imposing sanctions, including, but not limited to,

Case 3:05-cv-02753-MMC Document 11 Filed 08/30/05 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

striking from the record any electronically-filed document of which a chambers copy had not

been timely provided to the Court.

Brickell again has violated the Court’s order by failing to lodge a chambers copy of

its answer and counterclaim. The Court expects the parties to comply with the Court’s

orders without being repeatedly reminded to do so. Accordingly, the Court hereby

STRIKES Brickell’s answer and counterclaim from the record, without prejudice to its

refiling the documents in full compliance with General Order 45. Any refiling must be

accompanied by a declaration explaining the reasons for Brickell’s failure to date to abide

by the Court’s orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02753-MMC Document 11 Filed 08/30/05 Page 2 of 2