From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 24, 2016
No. 2:13-cv-0007-KJM-DAD (E.D. Cal. Jun. 24, 2016)

Opinion

No. 2:13-cv-0007-KJM-DAD

06-24-2016

AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL CHARLES E. "CHUCK" YEAGER (RET.), et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Victoria Yeager, who proceeds without separate representation in this action, moves for leave to file electronically under Local Rule 183(c). ECF No. 247. Her motion is GRANTED subject to the following condictions:

(1) Pro se litigants must follow the same procedural rules as litigants represented by attorneys. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a).

This District's Local Rules and this court's standing orders are available at < http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/rules/local-rules/ > and < http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/5020/standing-orders/ > --------

(2) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 imposes an obligation on pro se litigants and attorneys alike to certify (a) that all motions and other papers submitted to the court are "not being presented for any improper purpose"; (b) that "legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law"; and (c) that factual contentions and denials "have evidentiary support" or "are warranted on the evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a)-(b).

This court has inherent authority and authority under federal law to impose sanctions for violations of its orders and for conduct in bad faith. See, e.g., Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2001); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110, 183, 184(a); Order April 17, 2015, at 2, ECF No. 176. Filings which do not comply with these rules may be stricken and appropriate sanctions may be imposed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 24, 2016

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 24, 2016
No. 2:13-cv-0007-KJM-DAD (E.D. Cal. Jun. 24, 2016)
Case details for

AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager

Case Details

Full title:AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL CHARLES E. "CHUCK" YEAGER…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 24, 2016

Citations

No. 2:13-cv-0007-KJM-DAD (E.D. Cal. Jun. 24, 2016)