Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00164/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00164-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGER D. ROMERO, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA) NA, )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-07-164 OWW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR STATEMENT OF

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

(Doc. 10)

Plaintiff Roger D. Romero, proceeding in pro per, has filed

a “Motion for Statement of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Each

Motion Submitted by Plaintiff”. Plaintiff moves the Court “to

furnish Plaintiff with a statement of facts and conclusions of

law for each motion he submits, in order for him to present

errors of fact and law in the lower court’s reasoning to the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and for this Court to grant this

Plaintiff Due Process of Law and to ‘clock in’ and ‘clock out’ on

the time spent processing each motion.”

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

Case 1:07-cv-00164-OWW -LJO Document 11 Filed 03/29/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

The requirement for findings of fact and conclusions of law

is set forth in Rule 52, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule

52(a) provides in pertinent part:

In all actions tried upon the facts without a

jury or with an advisory jury, the court

shall find the facts specially and state

separately its conclusions of law thereon,

and judgment shall be entered pursuant to

Rule 58; and in granting or refusing

interlocutory injunctions the court shall

similarly set forth the findings of fact and

conclusions of law which constitute the

grounds of its action ... Findings of fact

and conclusions of law are unnecessary on

decisions of motions under Rule 12 or 56 or

any other motion except as provided in

subdivision (c) of this rule.

Rule 52(c) provides in pertinent part:

If during a trial without a jury a party has

been fully heard on an issue and the court

finds against the party on that issue, the

court may enter judgment as a matter of law

against that party with respect to a claim or

defense that cannot under controlling law be

maintained or defeated without a favorable

finding on that issue, or the court may

decline to render any judgment until the

close of all the evidence. Such a judgment

shall be supported by findings of fact and

conclusions of law as required by subdivision

(a) of this rule.

Here, there has been no trial. The Magistrate Judge, on

findings, recommended that this action be dismissed as an

improper attempt by Plaintiff to remove a dispute that was in

arbitration to the federal court. Based on this correct legal

analysis, following de novo consideration of Plaintiff’s

objections to the recommendation, the case was ordered dismissed

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No findings of fact or

Case 1:07-cv-00164-OWW -LJO Document 11 Filed 03/29/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

conclusions of law are required by Rule 52. Further, the Ninth

Circuit has rejected any requirement that findings of fact and

conclusions of law be prepared on all motions because such a

requirement “would paralyze our overburdened trial courts with

one more-time consuming duty.” D’Emanuele v. Montgomery Ward &

Co., Inc., 904 F.2d 1379, 1388 (9 Cir.1990). th

Plaintiff further contends that the only way he “will know

that he has had an Article III federal judge actually read,

research and rule on his issues would be if everyone involved

(law clerk(s), judge or whoever) ‘clocks in’ and ‘clocks out’

when they work on his motions (a practice engaged in by all major

law firms, which bill in 6 minute increments).” 

Plaintiff’s request appears to be based on his assumption

that United States District Court Judges do not themselves review

civil matters under submission to them and rely on their legal

staff to conduct research and draft orders or opinions. 

Plaintiff’s written observations allege that this is a greater

problem in prisoner cases. There is no requirement under the law

requiring District Court Judges and/or their legal staff to

record the amount of time spent on a pending matter. The

timekeeping practice followed by law firms is for the purpose of

billing their clients, a need not applicable to federal district

courts. The Order in this case adopting the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation is based on a de novo review of the case,

including Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and

recommendation, conducted by the United States District Court

Case 1:07-cv-00164-OWW -LJO Document 11 Filed 03/29/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Judge.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above:

1. Plaintiff’s “Motion for Statement of Facts and

Conclusions of Law for Each Motion Submitted by Plaintiff” is

DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s demand that the Court “clock in” and “clock

out” for time spent working on Plaintiff’s motions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00164-OWW -LJO Document 11 Filed 03/29/07 Page 4 of 4