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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ADELINE S. GREENWELL,

NO. CIV. S 04-2205 MCE GGH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

RONALD STREMEL GREENWELL, an

individual, RANDEE J. BRADY,

an individual; Carla Robbins

Lewis, an individual,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

On August 8, 2005, Counsel for Plaintiff filed a one-page

document entitled “Suggestion of Death” that attached, as an

exhibit, an uncertified copy of a death certificate purported to

be that of Adeline S. Greenwell. In addition to suggesting Ms.

Greenwell’s death, the document also contained a two line request

that Coral Lou Glenn-Sehara and Marshall & Ilsley Trust Company,

N.A. be substituted as Plaintiffs in this matter, pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a).

After this Court informed Plaintiff’s counsel that he would

Case 2:04-cv-02205-MCE -GGH Document 48 Filed 10/14/05 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

have to file a noticed motion to obtain such relief, on August

26, 2005 a “Notice of Motion to Substitute Parties and Suggestion

of Death” was filed which failed to include any motion, let alone

a memorandum of points and authorities and other supporting

documentation as required by Local Rule 78-230(b). The Notice of

Motion fails to even reference Plaintiff’s earlier August 8, 2005

filing, leaving the Court to speculate just what relief is sought

by the motion, and upon what basis such relief may be justified.

Plaintiff’s “Notice of Motion” is utterly inadequate on

numerous levels, and will be disregarded by the Court. First, as

indicated above, the Notice of Motion itself was filed absent any

motion (it does not even refer to the two-line “motion” contained

in the earlier August 8, 2005 filing). Secondly, the Notice of

Motion fails even if the August 8, 2005 filing is considered in

conjunction with Plaintiff’s Notice. There is still no

supporting memorandum of points and authorities, as required by

the local rules, or any indication as to the identity/capacity of

the individuals proposed to be substituted as Plaintiffs.

This Court will not attempt to glean such information by

reviewing the case docket in its entirety. As the Seventh

Circuit aptly noted, in perusing the record “judges are not like

pigs, hunting for truffles...” United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d

955, 956, (7 Cir. 1991). Because Plaintiff’s counsel has not th

specified by supporting papers filed together with his motion why

the substitution request is justified, or why the individuals

proposed as plaintiffs are appropriate candidates for

substitution, his purported motion to substitute necessarily

fails at the onset and is accordingly DENIED, without prejudice

Case 2:04-cv-02205-MCE -GGH Document 48 Filed 10/14/05 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

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 1

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h).

3

to a properly substantiated motion from being submitted.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 13, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02205-MCE -GGH Document 48 Filed 10/14/05 Page 3 of 3