Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01381/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01381-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 In this case arising from a disputed aircraft lease agreement, the parties have filed the 

18 following pleadings: 1) ex parte application for reference to the magistrate judge by plaintiff; 

19 2) request for judicial notice and sanctions by defendants; 3) motion to vacate the clerk’s entry of 

20 default by plaintiff; 4) unified response and request for declaratory judgment by plaintiff; and 5) 

21 motion in limine by plaintiff. For the reasons below, the court strikes all the above pleadings for 

22 not complying with Local Rules and the court’s standing order. 

23 First, plaintiff’s ex parte application for reference to the magistrate judge, Ex Parte Appl., 

24 ECF No. 28, does not comply with this court’s standing order on ex parte applications, Standing 

25 Order at 5, ECF No. 4-1. For instance, the application does not include an affidavit. See Ex Parte 

26 Appl. 

27 Second, defendants’ request for judicial notice and sanctions, Req. Jud. Notice & 

28 Sanctions, ECF No. 35, does not comply with any of the following: Local Rule on motions for 

ABOA, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Paul Thomas, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-01381-KJM-DB 

ORDER 

Case 2:22-cv-01381-KJM-DB Document 57 Filed 12/13/22 Page 1 of 3
2 

1 administrative relief, E.D. Cal. L.R. 233, the Local Rule on civil motions, E.D. Cal. L.R. 230, this 

2 court’s standing order requiring parties to certify meet and confer efforts have been exhausted, 

3 Standing Order at 3, or this court’s standing order on ex parte applications, id. at 5. 

4 Third, plaintiff’s motion to vacate the clerk’s entry of default, Mot. Vacate, ECF No. 36, 

5 does not comply with the Local Rule on civil motions, E.D. Cal. L.R. 230, or this court’s standing 

6 order, Standing Order at 3. In this motion, plaintiff’s counsel states, “Meet and confer efforts 

7 were extended without response at this time, but expected to be futile.” Mot. Vacate at 2. 

8 Counsel does not include a brief summary of the meet and confer efforts and does not certify such 

9 efforts have been exhausted. See Standing Order at 3. The magistrate judge noted “[t]he Motion 

10 as filed is deficient,” and directed plaintiff to re-notice its motion before this court. Min. Order 

11 (Nov. 14, 2022), ECF No. 38. Plaintiff has not taken any further action regarding this motion. 

12 Fourth, plaintiff filed a “unified response to defense pleadings” and request for declaratory 

13 judgment, well after the deadline for any responsive pleading. Unified Response & Req. for 

14 Declaratory J., ECF No. 44. To the extent it belatedly seeks to respond to defendants’ motions, it 

15 is stricken as untimely. See Spurlock v. F.B.I., 69 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir. 1995) (discussing a 

16 district court’s “inherent authority to manage its docket”); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 (“Failure of counsel 

17 or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for 

18 imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 

19 inherent power of the Court.”). To the extent the request for declaratory judgment is a motion, it 

20 does not comply with the Local Rule on civil motions, E.D. Cal. L.R. 230, or this court’s standing 

21 order requiring parties to certify meet and confer efforts have been exhausted, Standing Order at 

3. 22 

23 Fifth, ABOA filed a motion in limine, “object[ing] to any mention or argument about 

24 [plaintiff’s] alleged defaults on matters outside the scope of non-payment . . . .” Mot. in Limine, 

25 ECF No. 50. The motion did not comply with the Local Rule on civil motions, E.D. Cal. L.R. 

26 230, or this court’s standing order requiring parties to certify meet and confer efforts have been 

27 exhausted, Standing Order at 3. 

28 ///// 

Case 2:22-cv-01381-KJM-DB Document 57 Filed 12/13/22 Page 2 of 3
3 

1 For the reasons above, the court strikes the following pleadings: 

2 1. Plaintiff’s ex parte application for reference to the magistrate judge (ECF No. 28); 

3 2. Defendants’ request for judicial notice and sanctions (ECF No. 35); 

4 3. Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the clerk’s entry of default (ECF No. 36); 

5 4. Plaintiff’s unified response and request for declaratory judgment (ECF No. 44); 

6 5. Plaintiff’s motion in limine (ECF No. 50); and 

7 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike the filings at ECF Nos. 28, 35, 36, 44 and 

8 50. 

9 This order resolves ECF Nos. 28, 35, 36, 44 and 50. 

10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

11 DATED: December 13, 2022. 

 12 

Case 2:22-cv-01381-KJM-DB Document 57 Filed 12/13/22 Page 3 of 3