From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. Velocity Tech. Sols.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jul 21, 2021
2:19-cv-02374-KJM-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 21, 2021)

Opinion

2:19-cv-02374-KJM-JDP (PS)

07-21-2021

GARRISON JONES, Plaintiff, v. VELOCITY TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, Defendant.


ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

ECF NO. 74

JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against defendant and its counsel for submitting to this court allegedly fabricated FMLA complaints and release letters. ECF No. 74. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is unsigned and so must be struck. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Should plaintiff seek to refile a motion for sanctions, he must sign his motion, follow the notification procedure in Rule 11, and explain why sanctions are appropriate. Plaintiff's motion “must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(2). Plaintiff must serve the motion, but should not file it with “the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days.” Id.

Accordingly, the court strikes plaintiff's motion for sanctions, ECF No. 74. The hearing on this matter, set for August 19, 2021, is vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Jones v. Velocity Tech. Sols.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jul 21, 2021
2:19-cv-02374-KJM-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 21, 2021)
Case details for

Jones v. Velocity Tech. Sols.

Case Details

Full title:GARRISON JONES, Plaintiff, v. VELOCITY TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jul 21, 2021

Citations

2:19-cv-02374-KJM-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 21, 2021)