Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05977/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05977-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSALIND SMITH,

Plaintiff, No. C 09-5977 PJH

v. ORDER

MICHAEL MURPHY, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff Rosalind Smith has filed a request to continue the initial case management

conference (“CMC”), along with motions to strike the affirmative defenses pled by

defendants M&M Automotive Group, Inc. (“M&M” – sued as Michael Murphy d/b/a

Volkswagen of Oakland) and Volkswagen Credit, Inc. a/k/a Volkswagen Group of America

(“VW Credit”), and a motion for summary judgment. Counsel for VW Credit has filed a

request to appear telephonically at the CMC. The court now rules as follows.

1. Request to Continue CMC and Request to Appear Telephonically

The date for the CMC, previously set for April 8, 2010, is hereby CONTINUED to

Thursday, April 29, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. All parties will appear telephonically. Counsel for

VW Credit will arrange a conference call (with all parties) to chambers at the scheduled

time. Plaintiff and defendants may file separate CMC statements. Plaintiff’s CMC

statement must be filed no later than Thursday, April 22, 2010. If defendants wish to

amend their CMC statement, the amended statement must be filed no later than April 22,

2010.

2. Motions to Strike Affirmative Defenses

Plaintiff has filed two motions, seeking to strike as insufficient the affirmative

defenses pled by M&M and VW Credit in the answers they filed in the Alameda County

Superior Court. As an initial matter, the court notes that these two motions are in violation

Case 4:09-cv-05977-PJH Document 29 Filed 04/02/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

of Civil Local Rule 3-4(c)(2), because the text is written in a font that is less than 12-point

type. Plaintiff is reminded that “[a] person representing him or herself without an attorney is

bound by the Federal Rules, as well as by all applicable local rules.” Civ. L.R. 3-9(a). 

Plaintiff is therefore obligated to read and familiarize herself with the Civil Local Rules of

this court. Continued failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in the imposition of

sanctions. Id. 

In addition, however, the court finds that the motions must be DENIED as untimely. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a motion to strike an insufficient defense must

be filed within 21 days after the plaintiff is served with the answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(f)(2). Here, since the answers were filed while the case was still pending in the

Alameda County Superior Court, the court counts the time from the date the notice of

removal was filed and the proof of service shows that plaintiff was served with the notice of

removal – December 21, 2009. Thus, the deadline for filing the motions to strike, adding

the 21 days allowed under Rule 12(f)(2) to the three days allowed under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure Rule 6(d), was January 17, 2010. Since that day was a Sunday, under

Rule 6(a), the last day to file was Monday, January 18, 2010. 

2. Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff seeks summary judgment, arguing that defendants failed to comply with

certain rules of civil procedure, in that they failed to serve the notice of removal in a timely

manner, failed to provide this court with a copy of all records from the Alameda County

Superior Court case, failed to comply with court orders regarding the CMC and ADR

deadlines, failed to comply with the court’s standing order re removed cases, failed to

comply with the duty to disclose under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, and violated the

standards of professional conduct.

As an initial matter, the court notes that the motion is in violation of Civil Local Rule 

3-4(c)(2), because the text is written in a font that is less than 12-point type, and because

the type is not double-spaced, with no more than 28 lines per page; and is in violation of

Civil Local Rule 7-2 because it was not noticed for hearing. In addition, the print in the

Case 4:09-cv-05977-PJH Document 29 Filed 04/02/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

exhibits attached to the motion is in a font so small as to be unreadable, and the exhibits

are also unauthenticated and therefore inadmissible as evidence. See Orr v. Bank of

America, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the motion is also improper, as this

court does not rule on motions for summary judgment before it has issued a scheduling

order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, following the initial CMC. 

In addition, however, the court finds that the motion must be DENIED on the merits. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that “[a] party” may move “for summary

judgment on all or part of a claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), (b). The court will grant the

motion “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the movant is entitled

to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). 

As the moving party, it is the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate, by providing

admissible evidence, that there is no material dispute as to whether she should prevail on

any of her claims. See, e.g., Southern Calif. Gas. Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885,

888 (9th Cir. 2003). That is, she must demonstrate that there is no triable issue as to any

element of any of her causes of action. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,

249-50 (1986) (to prevail at summary judgment, the party who bears the burden of proof on

an element must present significant probative evidence). 

Here, plaintiff has provided no evidence to support any element of any of her eight

causes of action. Her only argument is that defendants have failed to comply with certain

procedural rules. That is not a sufficient basis for a motion for summary judgment, as it

does not resolve the question whether there are triable issues with regard to the claims

asserted in the complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-05977-PJH Document 29 Filed 04/02/10 Page 3 of 3