United States v. Molen

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAMES O. MOLEN (also known as…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 19, 2011

2:10-cv-02591 MCE KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2011)

Opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAMES O. MOLEN (also known as James-Orbin: Molen); et al., Defendants. No. 2:10-cv-02591 MCE KJN PS United States District Court, E.D. California. August 19, 2011

          ORDER

          KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

         Defendants James Molen and Sandra Molen (the "defendants") are proceeding without counsel in this action.¹ Defendants have filed two motions: a "Notice of Motion and Motion And Demand For Jury Trial" (Dkt. No. 81), and a "Notice of Motion And Motion For Jury Trial And Demand For Jury Trial" (Dkt. No. 85).² Both motions seek relief from defendants' admittedly untimely jury demand, and both motions request a trial by jury. Plaintiff, the United States of America (the "plaintiff"), has filed an opposition to the motions. (Dkt. No. 89.)

1 This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 302(c)(21). (See Dkt. No. 11.)

2 Defendants have already received warnings from this court regarding their obligation to abide by the rules of litigation procedure, including their obligation to refrain from filing duplicative motions. (E.g., Dkt. Nos. 60, 65.) Defendants are cautioned that their filings at Docket Numbers 81 and 85 are substantively duplicative. However, it is possible that defendants did not intentionally violate the court's order prohibiting duplicative motions, given that defendants erroneously noticed the former motion before the incorrect judge and, after filing the latter motion, may not have intended the former motion to remain at issue. While the undersigned gives defendants the benefit of the doubt in this particular instance, the undersigned also reminds defendants that duplicative motions are prohibited and may result in summary denial(s) and/or sanctions.

         It is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

         1. Because oral argument would not materially aid the resolution of the pending motions, these matters are submitted on the briefs and record without a hearing. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); E.D. Local Rule 230(g) ("... the motion may be submitted upon the record and briefs on file... if the Court so orders, subject to the power of the Court to reopen the matter for further briefs or oral arguments or both.")

         2. The hearing dates previously set regarding the motions is hereby vacated.

         3. While the matter is submitted on the briefs and without a hearing, defendants may file a Reply brief in support of their motion. Defendants' Reply brief shall be filed no later than August 25, 2011.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.