Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00401/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00401-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

 The Court ordinarily does not act on requests made by letter. The Court will make

an exception in this instance, however, to ensure plaintiff has been provided a copy of all

orders issued in her case.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIA CHEVALIER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUTTER HOTEL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-07-0401 MMC

ORDER RE: LETTER REQUEST;

DIRECTING DEFENDANT OAKLAND

SUTTER HOTEL, LP TO MAIL

PLAINTIFF COPIES OF DOCKET NOS.

22 AND 23; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK 

The Court is in receipt of plaintiff Kia Chevalier’s letter dated November 8, 2007,

wherein plaintiff provides the Court with her correct mailing address, states she has not

received copies of three documents in the Court’s file, specifically Docket Nos. 13, 22, and

23, and requests that copies of said documents be mailed to her.1

 Docket No. 13 is the

May 11, 2007 Chief Judge’s Order titled “In re: Electronic Filing in Cases Involving

Unrepresented Parties” (hereafter “Chief Judge’s Order”). Docket No. 22 is defendant

Oakland Sutter Hotel, LP’s Answer; Docket No. 23 is defendant Oakland Sutter Hotel, LP’s

Case Management Conference Statement. 

As plaintiff notes in her letter, Docket Nos. 13, 22 and 23 are not located in the

Case 3:07-cv-00401-MMC Document 29 Filed 12/06/07 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

 The Court notes that each of said documents was filed prior to plaintiff’s providing

her “correct/change of Mailing address” and defendant appears to have mailed each of said

documents to plaintiff at an address previously provided by plaintiff. (See Def.’s Answer at

9:10-11; Def.’s Case Management Conference Statement at 3:10-11.) 

The Court further notes that plaintiff has previously provided inconsistent and

conflicting address information in her filings. (Compare Pl.’s Complaint filed January 22,

2007 (identifying plaintiff’s address as including Post Office Box “55641"), Pl.’s Notice of

Need of ADR Telephone Conf. filed April 12, 2007 (same), and Pl.’s Case Management

Statement filed October 5, 2007 (same), with Pl.’s Am. Compl. filed February 23, 2007

(identifying plaintiff’s address as including Post Office Box “55461"), Pl.’s Request for Entry

of Default J. filed August 15, 2007 (same), and Pl.’s Request for Entry of Default J. filed

October 5, 2007 (same)).

2

Clerk’s file. Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, however, they are not “missing” from that file.

Each of said documents was electronically filed and, consequently, need not be filed in the

Clerk’s file. (See Chief Judge’s Order at 1:17-20.) Unrepresented parties such as plaintiff,

are, however, entitled to have paper copies of all filed documents served on them by mail.

(See id. at 1:20-21.) 

In light of plaintiff’s assertion that she has not received a copy of the abovereferenced documents, and plaintiff’s recent specification of her “correct/change of Mailing

address,” defendant is hereby ORDERED to mail to plaintiff, within 10 days hereof, copies

of Docket Nos. 22 and 23.2

 Additionally, the Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to update the

docket with respect to plaintiff’s address, as set forth in her letter of November 8, 2007, and

to mail to plaintiff a copy of Docket No. 13. All such copies shall be mailed to plaintiff at the

address specified in her letter of November 8, 2007: Post Office Box 55641, Hayward,

California 94545.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00401-MMC Document 29 Filed 12/06/07 Page 2 of 2