Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-01059/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-01059-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JAMES MCGIBNEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THOMAS RETZLAFF,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01059-BLF 

ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENTS

[Re: ECF 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 

162]

The Statements of Recent Decision pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(d)(2) filed by pro se

defendant Thomas Retzlaff on March 1 (ECF 154), March 18 (ECF 157), March 25 (ECF 159), 

and April 12, 2015 (ECF 161) are STRICKEN. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d)(2) provides that:

Before the noticed hearing date, counsel may bring to the Court’s 

attention a relevant judicial opinion published after the date the 

opposition or reply was filed by filing and serving a Statement of 

Recent Decision, containing a citation and providing a copy of the 

new opinion—without argument.

(emphasis added). Defendant’s filings contain improper argument and are accordingly stricken.1 

The uninvited additional argument at ECF 155, 156, and 162 based upon Defendant’s stricken 

non-compliant statements of recent decision are also STRICKEN.2 Because Defendant’s various 

motions to dismiss and strike are under submission, the Court will accept no further “statements of 

recent decision,” “declarations,” or other evidence in connection with the submitted motions 

without first obtaining leave of court upon a showing of good cause.

 

1

The Court will consider the court opinion—but not Defendant’s argument—that Defendant 

submitted in his February 20, 2015 Statement of Recent Decision, ECF 153, to the extent it is 

relevant to the issues before the Court.

2 Defendant’s administrative motion to strike Plaintiffs’ declaration at ECF 162 is DENIED as 

moot. See ECF 163.

Case 5:14-cv-01059-BLF Document 164 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendant’s March 19, 2015 Administrative Motion Notifying Court of Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 4(m) Deadline Violation, ECF 158, is also STRICKEN. Defendant Retzlaff is the 

only remaining named defendant in this lawsuit, and he has been served. Defendant does not have 

standing to invoke Rule 4(m) on behalf of any other potential defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-01059-BLF Document 164 Filed 04/15/15 Page 2 of 2