Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02980/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02980-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 330
Nature of Suit: Federal Employers' Liability
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act (Definitions)

---

1 

16cv2980-LAB (MDD)

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BERTHA VAZQUEZ FAJARDO, et 

al., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF STATE, et al., 

Defendant. 

 Case No.: 16cv2980-LAB (MDD) 

ORDER REQUIRING COUNSEL 

TO REFRAIN FROM EX PARTE 

COMMUNICATION AND 

MISUSE OF EMAIL ADDRESS 

 It has come to the Court’s attention that Plaintiff’s counsel has been phoning 

chambers without opposing counsel on the line, suggesting that the stay should 

be lifted and asking what he should do to effect this. Chambers staff properly 

declined to offer an explanation or answer, or to predict what action the Court might 

take or when. 

 Attorneys are reminded to refrain from requesting legal advice from Court 

staff, and to refrain from attempting to engage in ex parte communications. Calling 

chambers staff to ask how to have a stay lifted amounts to asking for legal advice. 

It is particularly inappropriate here, where the matter is disputed and where other 

counsel or litigants are not participating in the call, or likely even aware of it. 

Case 3:16-cv-02980-LAB-MDD Document 53 Filed 01/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

16cv2980-LAB (MDD)

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

 Today, after chambers staff correctly declined to answer Plaintiff’s counsel’s 

questions, he emailed this Chambers and Magistrate Judge Dembin’s chambers 

using the email addresses reserved for lodging proposed orders for electronicallyfiled motions. His email includes a request that the stay be lifted, and gives his 

reasons for thinking the stay should be lifted. Opposing counsel were copied on 

the email, and one filed a response addressing his points. 

 Under Civil Local Rule 5.4(a), motions are to be electronically filed in the 

docket. Under Rule 5.4(f), counsel are required to follow this District’s and 

Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual when filing 

documents electronically. The Manual forbids registered users from using the efiling email addresses to communicate with the Court, except in circumstances not 

present here. See Manual, § 2(h). (“These e-mail addresses are not to be 

utilized to communicate with the Court unless otherwise permitted or when 

communications are solicited by the Court.”) (emphasis in original). Unsolicited 

and unexpected emails are discourteous to the Court, and unlikely to be effective. 

 Besides violating these rules, attempting to file and brief motions via email 

amounts to litigating in secret, with no good cause shown and without the Court’s 

leave. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179–80 (9th 

Cir. 2006). The Court will not consider or act on the emailed requests or briefing. 

The proper vehicle for requesting that the stay be lifted, or for opposing its being 

lifted, is a publicly filed and noticed motion. Chambers efile email addresses are to 

be used only for authorized purposes. Conduct in derogation of this rule is 

sanctionable. 

 As counsel are aware, the Court certified for interlocutory appeal the issue 

of Agent Rico’s scope of employment, and stayed the case until further notice to 

allow for resolution of the issue. The Ninth Circuit accepted the issue for appeal, 

and the appeal is still pending. Although the panel issued a memorandum decision, 

it has not issued a mandate. Thus, jurisdiction over the issue appealed is still with 

Case 3:16-cv-02980-LAB-MDD Document 53 Filed 01/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

16cv2980-LAB (MDD)

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

the Ninth Circuit, and not with this Court. See Marrese v. Am. Academy of 

Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 379 (1985); Sgaraglino v. State Farm Fire 

& Cas. Co., 896 F.2d 420, 421 (9th Cir.1990) (noting that appellate court’s 

mandate returned jurisdiction to the district court). While the Court could, in theory, 

continue to adjudicate other matters, see Marrese, 470 U.S. at 379 (notice of 

appeal divests district court of jurisdiction over the issues appealed), the same 

reasons for staying the case and certifying the issue for appeal continue to apply 

in full force. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 10, 2020 

 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-02980-LAB-MDD Document 53 Filed 01/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3