Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02035/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02035-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
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

MILTON CHARLES VAN NOLAND

and JOY GARNER,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-09-2035 MCE DAD PS

v.

ERIC S. PELLETIER and “GRRR! ORDER 

LIMITED,”

Defendants.

 /

On September 11, 2009, the undersigned heard argument on plaintiffs’ August 10,

2009 motion for sanctions. By order filed September 14, 2009, the motion was denied without

prejudice to renewal following resolution of plaintiffs’ pending motion for remand. (See Doc.

No. 42.) On September 18, 2009, the undersigned heard argument on plaintiffs’ August 18, 2009

motion to remand, took the motion under submission, directed plaintiffs to refrain from

submitting additional briefing pending the court’s ruling on the motion to remand, and reiterated

that the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions was without prejudice to renewal if the court

rules that defendants’ removal of the case from state court was improper.

Within a week after September 18, 2009, plaintiffs filed a request for judicial

notice and a memorandum in support of their submitted motion to remand. (Docs. No. 47, 49.) 

Case 2:09-cv-02035-MCE -DAD Document 58 Filed 01/06/10 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

2

A few days later, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited ruling on the motion to remand. (Doc.

No. 50.) In October 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for findings on the submitted motion to

remand. (Doc. No. 51.) In November 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for an order to show cause

regarding remand and sanctions. (Doc. No. 52.) The November motion was improperly noticed

for hearing before the district judge. Instead of re-noticing the motion as directed by the district

judge, plaintiffs filed yet another motion to remand and for sanctions on December 9, 2009. 

(Doc. No. 54.) A lengthy memorandum of law in support of the December 9, 2009 motion was

belatedly filed on December 15, 2009. (Doc. No. 56.)

All of plaintiff’s post-September 18, 2009 motions are duplicative or premature,

and all were filed in violation of the court’s directions at the hearings on September 11 and

September 18, 2009. For this reason, the motions will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ motions filed September 29, 2009 (Doc. No. 50), October 30, 2009

(Doc. No. 51), November 30, 2009 (Doc. No. 52), and December 9, 2009 (Doc. No. 54) are

denied as duplicative of pending motions, as premature, or as impermissible further briefing; and

2. Plaintiff’s December 9, 2009 motion to remand and for sanctions is dropped

from the court’s January 15, 2010 calendar.

DATED: January 6, 2010.

DAD:kw

Ddad1\orders.pro se\vannoland2035.ord.vachrg

Case 2:09-cv-02035-MCE -DAD Document 58 Filed 01/06/10 Page 2 of 2