Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07782/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07782-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:203 Equal Pay 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTO MALDONADO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

HALLMARK PAINTING, INC., et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-7782 MMC

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

The Court’s review of the docket indicates that, on September 7, 2007, plaintiffs

electronically filed a “Motion and Notice of Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint

Pursuant to FRCP 15(a).”

Both the Court’s Standing Orders and General Order No. 45, Section VI.G., require

that, in addition to filing papers electronically, the parties are required to provide for use in

chambers a paper copy of each document that is electronically filed, and to provide such

paper copy no later than noon on the business day following the day the document is filed

electronically. As of today’s date, the Court has not received a chambers copy of the

above-described filing. Accordingly, plaintiffs are in violation on both the Court’s Standing

Orders and General Order No. 45.

The Court has previously advised plaintiffs of their obligation to provide chambers

copies and that future failures to comply may result in sanctions, including the striking of

Case 3:06-cv-07782-MMC Document 23 Filed 09/14/07 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 1

The hearing noticed for October 12, 2007 is VACATED.

2

documents for which the Court is not provided a chambers copy. (See Order, filed

February 20, 2007.) Further, at the Case Management Conference conducted June 1,

2007, the Court advised plaintiffs, in light of their having failed to provide a chambers copy

of the Joint Case Management Statement filed May 29, 2007, of their obligation to provide

chambers copies. Such reminders have, unfortunately, had little effect on compelling

compliance.

Accordingly, the Court hereby STRIKES plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend, as a

sanction for plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the requirement, set forth in both this Court’s

Standing Orders and in General Order No. 45, to provide chambers copies.1 The motion is

stricken without prejudice to plaintiffs’ re-filing the document electronically and timely

providing chambers with a paper copy thereof.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07782-MMC Document 23 Filed 09/14/07 Page 2 of 2