Opinion
ORDER
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.
Attorney Anthony Nguyen called and then e-mailed the undersigned judge's courtroom deputy clerk the attached e-mail. In the e-mail, counsel appears to be attempting to seek inappropriate legal advice from the courtroom deputy clerk. Counsel appears persistent in this attempt since his e-mail shows he left the undersigned judge's courtroom deputy clerk "voicemails... yesterday... [r]egarding Order No. 20, Order Striking Amended Answer, '" and that he is "confused as Defendant Chico Steakhouse never filed an Amended Answer." Counsel appears resolutely committed to seeking legal advice from the courtroom deputy clerk as stated in the last sentence of his e-mail: "If I can speak with you about this to see what we can do about correcting these issues, I would really appreciate it." Counsel shall discontinue trying to speak to the courtroom deputy clerk about this matter. It should be pellucid that counsel should instead "become familiar with and follow [the] rule[] applicable to practice in this court [about which he appears to seek legal advice from chambers]. It is incumbent upon an attorney practicing in [this court] to secure and study" the rule applicable to a ruling that disappoints the attorney, and presumably his or her client. Dela Rosa v. Scottsdale Mem'l Health Sys., Inc., 136 F.3d 1241 , 1244 (9th Cir. 1998). "Such behavior is not only a mark of elementary professional competence, but is common sense to attorneys seeking to zealously represent the interests of their clients." Id.
Although "Order No. 20" referenced Defendant Chico Steakhouse's pleading as an "Amended Answer, " it is understood the pleading referred to by both Attorney Nguyen and the Court's order is Defendant Chico Steakhouse's Answer filed March 21, 2013. (ECF No. 19.) Referring to the pleading as an amended answer is in accord with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. See Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Coffee Cup Partners, Inc., No. C 11-2243 CW, 2012 WL 3877783, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2012) (collecting Ninth Circuit cases applying the "moderate approach" to a party's right to amend its answer in response to an amended complaint and only "permit[ting] the defendant to respond to an amended complaint that changes the theory or scope of the case" (quoting Uniroyal Chem. Co., Inc. v. Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc., No. 3:02CV02253 (AHN), 2005 WL 677806, at *2 (D. Conn. Mar. 23, 2005))).
If Attorney Nguyen continues to communicate or to try to communicate with the courtroom deputy clerk on the topic that is the subject of his e-mail, he and his client will be issued an order to show cause why he and his client should not be sanctioned for disobedience of this court order. It seems apparent that Mr. Nguyen's unyielding obstinance in his persistence in speaking to the courtroom deputy clerk stems from his failure to understand that the undersigned judge decided that counsel's client was not authorized to amend its answer as a matter of right. See Adobe Sys. Inc., 2012 WL 3877783, at *5. It should be obvious to Attorney Nguyen and his client by now that if counsel's client wants to request something from the Court, it should be sought in a noticed motion. Obviously, law and motion hearing dates may be obtained from the courtroom deputy clerk.