Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00729/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00729-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Racketeering (RICO) 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 - 07CV0729

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLETTE SNEED,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07CV0729-LAB (AJB)

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

vs.

CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC, FIRST

FEDERAL BANK OF CALIFORNIA,

HOMEQ SERVICING, COUNTRYWIDE,

GMAC/SILVERSTATE,

Defendants.

After obtaining a hearing date for a motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Civil

Local Rule 7.1(b), on June 21, 2007, Plaintiff submitted her motion for summary judgment

(“Motion”), accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities (“Memo”) and an

affidavit (“Affidavit”).

The Memo is entirely printed in italics, with ample use of boldface and underlining.

Its 14 pages are entirely single-spaced and appears to consist entirely of materials

electronically cut and pasted into the document, since it contains numerous formatting

irregularities. These violates Civil Local Rule 5.1(a)’s legibility requirements. Had Plaintiff

complied with the rule regarding spacing, it is likely the Memo would be in violation of Civil

Local Rule 7.1(h)’s page limitations. Plaintiff is hereby admonished that future violations of

these requirements may result in her submitted documents being rejected for filing.

Case 3:07-cv-00729-LAB-AJB Document 13 Filed 06/27/07 Page 1 of 3
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 - 07CV0729

The Memo contains no explanation of why the Court should grant summary judgment

for the Plaintiff, or any awareness of what summary judgment is. The Memo appears to

consist of sections of electronically-obtained writings that have been cut and pasted into the

document, with little or no editing, explanation, or argument by Plaintiff, or any other sign that

Plaintiff has understood the nature of what she is citing or why she is citing it. The Court

admonishes Plaintiff that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), she must, at a minimum, have

made an objectively reasonable inquiry into the validity of the arguments contained in all

documents she has submitted to the Court.

The Affidavit sheds no light on the basis on which summary judgment is sought, but

rather, in the form of interrogatories, challenges the legal status of Defendants as financial

institutions and the professional qualifications of Defendants’ counsel, and asks various

questions of Defendants about burdens of proof. The Affidavit also, incomprehensibly, asks

Defendants to seek the recusal of judges, juries, and attorneys. 

The Motion consists of one page and provides no explanation of the basis on which

summary judgment is sought.

It is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk shall file the Motion, Memo, and Affidavit, and

immediately thereafter strike them from the docket. Because Plaintiff failed to file an

acceptable motion for summary judgment within three days of obtaining the hearing date,

as required under the Court’s standing order, ¶ 4(a), the hearing date Plaintiff obtained for

her motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(b) is hereby VACATED.

The Court notes that Plaintiff is alternately using the names “Charlotte” and

“Charlette.” (See, e.g., Affidavit at 1:20–21 “I, Charlotte Sneed” . . .”); 4:21–23 (signature

“Charlette Sneed” above signature block indicating her name is “Charlotte Sneed”). The

Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to use only her legally correct name in all pleadings

henceforth.

The Court also notes that, as in the complaint as well as the documents submitted in

support of the Motion, Plaintiff identifies herself as a foreign national, although she does not

state which nation she is a citizen of. (Affidavit at 1:20–21, 4:16–20, 4:22-23.) Because

Case 3:07-cv-00729-LAB-AJB Document 13 Filed 06/27/07 Page 2 of 3
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 - 07CV0729

Plaintiff’s status as an alien has some bearing on the Court’s jurisdiction, Plaintiff is hereby

ORDERED, in future pleadings in which she identifies herself as a foreign national, to specify

which nation she is a citizen of.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 26, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00729-LAB-AJB Document 13 Filed 06/27/07 Page 3 of 3