SNEED v. CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC

LARRY BURNS, District Judge

After obtaining a hearing date for a motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(b), on June 21, 2007, Plaintiff submitted her motion for summary judgment ("Motion"), accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities ("Memo") and an affidavit ("Affidavit").

The Memo is entirely printed in italics, with ample use of boldface and underlining. Its 14 pages are entirely single-spaced and appears to consist entirely of materials electronically cut and pasted into the document, since it contains numerous formatting irregularities. These violates Civil Local Rule 5.1(a)'s legibility requirements. Had Plaintiff complied with the rule regarding spacing, it is likely the Memo would be in violation of Civil Local Rule 7.1(h)'s page limitations. Plaintiff is hereby admonished that future violations of these requirements may result in her submitted documents being rejected for filing.

The Memo contains no explanation of why the Court should grant summary judgment for the Plaintiff, or any awareness of what summary judgment is. The Memo appears to consist of sections of electronically-obtained writings that have been cut and pasted into the document, with little or no editing, explanation, or argument by Plaintiff, or any other sign that Plaintiff has understood the nature of what she is citing or why she is citing it. The Court admonishes Plaintiff that, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b), she must, at a minimum, have made an objectively reasonable inquiry into the validity of the arguments contained in all documents she has submitted to the Court.

The Affidavit sheds no light on the basis on which summary judgment is sought, but rather, in the form of interrogatories, challenges the legal status of Defendants as financial institutions and the professional qualifications of Defendants' counsel, and asks various questions of Defendants about burdens of proof. The Affidavit also, incomprehensibly, asks Defendants to seek the recusal of judges, juries, and attorneys.

The Motion consists of one page and provides no explanation of the basis on which summary judgment is sought.

It is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk shall file the Motion, Memo, and Affidavit, and immediately thereafter strike them from the docket. Because Plaintiff failed to file an acceptable motion for summary judgment within three days of obtaining the hearing date, as required under the Court's standing order, ¶ 4(a), the hearing date Plaintiff obtained for her motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(b) is hereby VACATED.

The Court notes that Plaintiff is alternately using the names "Charlotte" and "Charlette." ( See, e.g., Affidavit at 1:20-21 "I, Charlotte Sneed" . . ."); 4:21-23 (signature "Charlette Sneed" above signature block indicating her name is "Charlotte Sneed"). The Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to use only her legally correct name in all pleadings henceforth.

The Court also notes that, as in the complaint as well as the documents submitted in support of the Motion, Plaintiff identifies herself as a foreign national, although she does not state which nation she is a citizen of. (Affidavit at 1:20-21, 4:16-20, 4:22-23.) Because Plaintiff's status as an alien has some bearing on the Court's jurisdiction, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED, in future pleadings in which she identifies herself as a foreign national, to specify which nation she is a citizen of.

IT IS SO ORDERED.