Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01798/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01798-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights

---

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 Plaintiff is advised that an answer is filed to a complaint and a response or

opposition is filed to a motion.

08cv1798

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WARREN BRAD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIMOTHY WENNES, et al.,

Defendants .

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv1798-L(JMA)

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S

“ANSWER” TO DEFENDANTS’

SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS

THE COMPLAINT [doc. #15] and

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

 [doc. #16]

On November 4, 2008, plaintiff filed an “answer”1

 to defendants’ “second” motion to

dismiss or alternatively for a more definite statement. There are two problems with plaintiff’s

motion. First, defendants’ “second” motion to dismiss [doc. #9] was stricken from the record on

November 29, 2008. (Discrepancy Order, doc. #10).] Accordingly, there is no motion to which

an opposition or response can be made. Second, plaintiff failed to file a certificate of service

attesting to the fact that opposing counsel has been served with plaintiff’s “answer.” In its Order

dated November 4, 2008, plaintiff was 

admonished that he must serve upon defendants or, if appearance has been entered

by counsel, upon defendants’ counsel, a copy of every further pleading or

document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the

original paper to be filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the

manner in which a true and correct copy of any document was served on

Case 3:08-cv-01798-L-JMA Document 18 Filed 11/06/08 Page 1 of 3
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 08cv1798

defendants or counsel for defendants and the date of service. Any paper received

by a district judge or a magistrate judge that has not been filed with the Clerk of

the Court or which fails to include a certificate of service will be disregarded by

the court.

(Order filed November 4, 2008 [doc. #14].) 

Because defendants’ motion to dismiss or alternatively for a more definite statement filed

on October 27, 2008, docket no. 9, has been stricken from the record, plaintiff’s “answer” to this

motion is also stricken from the record.

On November 5, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order

that took defendants’ motion to dismiss or alternatively for a more definite statement, docket no.

5, under submission without oral argument. Again plaintiff has not provided a certificate of

service for this motion with respect to opposing counsel. For this reason, the Court will strike

plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. But even if the Court were to consider plaintiff’s motion

for reconsideration, it would be denied. In the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff does not

argue that oral argument is necessary but instead states “Plaintiff motions the Courts for and

extension of time per Civil Rule 7.1, to allow the Court to examine evidence posted and

submitted to the Court on November 3, 2008" concerning plaintiff’s response to defendants’

second motion to dismiss. (Motion at 2). But as noted above, there is no second motion to

dismiss in the record as it has been stricken by the Court. Accordingly, there is no legal or

factual basis for plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

Plaintiff is again admonished that he must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Civil Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Southern District

of California. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-01798-L-JMA Document 18 Filed 11/06/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3 08cv1798

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED striking from the record plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration [doc. #16] and “answer” to defendants’ second motion to dismiss the complaint

[doc. #15]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 6, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. JAN M. ADLER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-01798-L-JMA Document 18 Filed 11/06/08 Page 3 of 3