Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01571/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01571-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond A. Merlo
Defendant
Robin J. Merlo
Defendant
Veronika Noble
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERONIKA NOBLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAYMOND A. MERLO; ROBIN J. 

MERLO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-1571 TLN DB PS

ORDER

This action came before the court on September 30, 2016, for hearing of plaintiff’s motion 

to strike defendants’ answer. Attorney Dennis Price appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. No 

appearance was made by, or on behalf of, defendant Raymond Merlo or defendant Robin Merlo.

Defendants are advised that the right to represent oneself pro se is personal and does not 

extend to other parties. Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008); see also

Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“A litigant appearing in propria persona 

has no authority to represent anyone other than himself.”). Moreover, a non-attorney “has no 

authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.” C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. U.S., 818 

F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). Individuals who are representing themselves in this court may not 

delegate the litigation of their claims to any other individual. Local Rule 183(a). In this regard, 

the name, address, and telephone number of each party must be included in the upper left-hand 

Case 2:16-cv-01571-TLN-DB Document 19 Filed 10/03/16 Page 1 of 4
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

corner of each document presented for filing and each defendant must sign each document they 

file. Local Rule 131(a) and (b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Here, it appears only defendant Raymond 

Merlo has signed the purported answer filed on behalf of the defendants. (Dkt. No. 5 at 8.)

Moreover:

Rule 8 [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] requires 

defendants responding to a complaint to “admit or deny the 

allegations asserted against it by an opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 8(b)(1)(B). An allegation of the complaint is admitted if “a 

responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6). In addition to a denial or admission, a party 

may also respond that it “lacks knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief about the truth of an allegation,” which has the 

effect of a denial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(5). Rule 8(b) therefore 

permits only three possible responses to a complaint: (1) admission; 

(2) denial; or (3) a disclaimer statement in compliance with Rule 

8(b)’s provision for lack of knowledge or information, which is 

deemed a denial.

Lane v. Page, 272 F.R.D. 581, 602 (D. N.M. 2011). 

Here, Section II. A. of the form defendants have used to draft their answer directs 

defendants to admit or deny the allegations found in each paragraph of the complaint on a 

separate page or pages. (Dkt. No. 5 at 2.) Defendants, however, have failed to do so. 

Although not noticed for hearing, the court notes that on July 27, 2016, defendants filed a 

California Judicial Council Form application seeking a stay of this action pursuant to California 

Civil Code § 55.54. (Dkt. No. 6.) “However, section 55.54’s provisions are preempted by the 

ADA and cannot be applied to plaintiff’s ADA claim.” Lamark v. Laiwalla, No. CIV. 2:12-3034 

WBS AC, 2013 WL 3872926, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 25, 2013); see also Daubert v. City of 

Lindsay, 37 F.Supp.3d 1168, 1179 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (“The ADA does not provide mandatory 

stays and early evaluation conferences to accommodate site inspections.”).

Moreover, “[i]t appears that all California federal courts to have considered the issue have 

found that, under Erie Rail Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), and related cases, a federal 

court should not apply the procedures of California Civil Code section 55.54 to supplemental 

state law claims either because its provisions are not outcome determinative.” Moreno v. Vohra, 

No. 1:14-cv-0539 AWI MJS, 2014 WL 2721770, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2014); see also

O’Campo v. Chico Mall, LP, 758 F.Supp.2d 976, 985 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (“Applying the rule does 

Case 2:16-cv-01571-TLN-DB Document 19 Filed 10/03/16 Page 2 of 4
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

not effect any parties’ legal rights or entitlement to relief.”). 

Accordingly, upon consideration of the arguments on file and those made at the hearing, 

and for the reasons set forth on the record at that hearing and above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 

that: 

1. Plaintiff’s August 15, 2016 motion to strike (Dkt. No. 12) is granted; 

2. Defendants’ July 27, 2016 and September 14, 2016 answers (Dkt. Nos. 5 & 17) are 

stricken1;

3. Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, defendants shall file an answer that 

cures the defects noted in this order and complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

the Local Rules of Practice; and

4. Defendants’ July 27, 2016 application for a stay (Dkt. No. 6) is denied.

Dated: September 30, 2016

DLB:6

DLB1\orders.pro se\noble1572.oah.093016

 

1

 On September 14, 2016, defendants filed a second answer. (Dkt. No. 17.) The September 14, 

2016 answer, however, is also defective for the reasons noted above. 

Case 2:16-cv-01571-TLN-DB Document 19 Filed 10/03/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case 2:16-cv-01571-TLN-DB Document 19 Filed 10/03/16 Page 4 of 4