Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BAKARI v. GORDON TRUCKING, INC., 1:16-cv-00793-DAD-SAB. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160715899 Visitors: 23
Filed: Jul. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 14, 2016
Summary: ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (ECF No. 4) STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Catrell Bakari, proceeding pro se, filed this action in Fresno County Superior Court on March 16, 2016. On June 6, 2016, Defendant Gordon Trucking, Inc. filed an answer. On June 7, 2016, Defendant removed the action to the Eastern District of California. On July 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant's answer to the complaint. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedu
More

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (ECF No. 4)

Plaintiff Catrell Bakari, proceeding pro se, filed this action in Fresno County Superior Court on March 16, 2016. On June 6, 2016, Defendant Gordon Trucking, Inc. filed an answer. On June 7, 2016, Defendant removed the action to the Eastern District of California. On July 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant's answer to the complaint.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide, in relevant part, that there shall be a complaint, an answer, and a reply to an answer if the court orders one. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). The Court has not ordered a reply to the answer and declines to make such an order. Therefore, Plaintiff's response to Defendant Gordon Trucking Inc.'s affirmative defense shall be stricken from the record.

Additionally, included with the response is a request for production of documents and request for interrogatories. Plaintiff is directed to Rule 26(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which states that a"[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)." Plaintiff is advised that even though he is proceeding pro se in this action, he is required to familiarize himself with and comply with the Federal Rules and Local Rules that apply in this action.

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that the Court is not a repository for the parties' evidence. Discovery requests and response are not to be filed in the action unless they are relevant to a matter that is pending decision.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's response, filed July 12, 2016, is STRICKEN from the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer