Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-cv-02351-EWN-MEH.
June 30, 2006
ORDER
This matter is before the court on the THIRD patently-defective motion filed by Plaintiffs. The first motion (#93) was nothing but a blank sheet. The second motion (#96) was denied because Plaintiffs failed to follow local rule 7.1A. The present (third) motion (#99) appears to be identical to the second and, again, fails to indicate any compliance with local rule 7.1A. It is therefore
ORDERED as follows:
1. The motion (#99) is DENIED.
2. Future noncompliance by counsel will result in sanctions AGAINST COUNSEL.