Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01045/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01045-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLOBAL COMMONDITIES TRADING 

GROUP, INC.; THE INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF THE STATE OF 

PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BENEFICIO DE ARROZ CHOLOMA, 

S.A., a Honduran Company; SADY 

FARID ANDONIE REYES, an Individual; 

JOYCE MARY JARUFE DOX, aka 

JOYCE JARUFE DE ANDONIE, an 

Individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-01045-TLN-CKD

ORDER

This matter is before the Court due to the parties’ filing of numerous dispositive motions 

followed by a barrage of ex parte and scheduling requests. In fact, the parties have continuously 

filed motions without providing the Court adequate time to respond. 

For example, this matter was removed to federal court on May 17, 2016. On June 17, 

2016, Defendants filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 8), which this Court granted 

(Order, ECF No. 10). On July 1, Defendants filed not one, but two motions to dismiss. (ECF No. 

11, 12.) On July 26, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 14) and a 

Case 2:16-cv-01045-TLN-CKD Document 88 Filed 10/26/16 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

27

28

2

motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 21). On August 25, Defendants filed a motion 

for protective order before Magistrate Judge Delaney. (ECF No. 33.) On September 6, Plaintiffs

filed a motion for leave to file first amended complaint. (ECF No. 35.) On September 13, 

Defendants filed a motion to continue and an ex parte motion. (ECF No. 39, 40.) On September 

27, Defendants filed a motion to strike. (ECF No. 54.) In sum, there are currently five motions 

pending before the Court, all filed in a span of less than three months. (ECF No. 11, 12, 14, 35, 

54.) If that were not enough to burden this Court’s docket, which currently has more than two 

hundred pending motions before it, the parties have failed to act in a professional manner and 

have continually refused to agree or stipulate to filing deadlines and hearing dates. The Court 

does not have time to babysit the attorneys in this matter to ensure that they are acting with the 

professionalism and civility that this Court expects. Nor will this Court continue to mediate this 

sort of behavior. As such, the Court orders as follows:

Defendants’ ex parte motion to strike (ECF No. 70) is hereby submitted on the briefing. 

At this time, the Court will not grant Defendants’ request to file a sur-reply. The Court will rule 

on these matters at its earliest availability, keeping in mind that matters filed before the Court 

prior to the parties’ submission take precedence. Further peppering of this Court with 

unnecessary motions that could be amicably decided between the parties will result in sanctions. 

The Court expects the parties to comply with this Court’s order and act with the appropriate level

of civility and professionalism.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-01045-TLN-CKD Document 88 Filed 10/26/16 Page 2 of 2