From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Plunkett v. Parham

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 18, 2022
2:19-cv-1450 KJM AC P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2022)

Opinion

2:19-cv-1450 KJM AC P

10-18-2022

CHARLES PLUNKETT, Plaintiff, v. C. PARHAM, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 46. Review of the supporting documents has revealed that the declarations of defendants Parham and Andrade have not been properly signed. ECF No. 46-3 at 4; ECF No. 46-4 at 4. To be effective, a non-attorney's electronic signature must comply with Local Rule 131(f). Specifically, both signatures are missing a statement that counsel has a signed original. Defendants will be provided with an opportunity as to each declaration either to submit a statement that counsel is in possession of the original, signed declaration or to provide a copy of the signed original. Failure as to either declaration will result in that declaration being disregarded. Plaintiff's deadline to respond to the motion shall remain unchanged.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants shall have three days from the service of this order to either submit a statement that counsel is in possession of the signed original declarations of defendants Parham and Andrade or to provide a copy of the signed originals. Failure as to either declaration to file an appropriate statement or a copy of the original signed declaration will result in that declaration being disregarded.


Summaries of

Plunkett v. Parham

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 18, 2022
2:19-cv-1450 KJM AC P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2022)
Case details for

Plunkett v. Parham

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES PLUNKETT, Plaintiff, v. C. PARHAM, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 18, 2022

Citations

2:19-cv-1450 KJM AC P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2022)