Dalrada Precision Corp. et al. v. Stuart Cox

Opinion

DALRADA PRECISION CORP. et al., Case No.: 24-cv-1122-AJB-DEB

Plaintiffs, v. STUART COX,

Defendants. The Court has received an email communication from Michele Kinser, who purports to be the Compliance Officer for Plaintiff Dalrada Precision, Corp. Letters and emails to chambers are strictly prohibited unless specifically requested by the Court. See Battaglia Civil Case Procedures § I.A. Accordingly, the Court has not reviewed the email. Courts may impose sanctions for violating court rules, such as local rules and chambers rules. Westhoff Vertriebsges mbH v. Berg, No. 22-CV-938-BAS-SBC, 2023 WL 7095112, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2023) (citing Van Osten v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., 2021 WL 3471581 (S.D. Cal. 2021) (noting that failure to follow the courts chambers rules is sanctionable conduct). Sanctions for failing to follow court rules may take various forms, including the striking of appropriate pleadings. Smith v. Frank, 923 F.2d 139, 142 (9th Cir. 1991). l Here, both Plaintiff Dalrada and Defendant Stuart Cox have repeatedly failed to comply with the Federal Rules, Local Rules, and this Court’s Chambers Rules. (See Doc. Nos. 12; 15; 35; 37; 40; 42-45; 53; 70; 74; 76; 115-16; 118; 131; 134; 138.) For example, Plaintiff has filed numerous noncompliant documents on the Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system (“CM/ECF’”). (See, e.g., Doc. Nos. 42-45.) Likewise, Defendant Cox has repeatedly violated this Court’s Civil Case Procedures by failing to obtain a hearing date before filing noticed motions. (See, e.g., 28-35; 113-16.) The Court has warned both parties that future noncompliance with the Federal Rules, Local Rules, or Chambers Rules may result in sanctions. (See Doc. Nos. 12; 15; 35; 37; 40; 53; 57; 70; 74; 76; 115-16; 118; 138.) The Court will not issue further warnings. Any future }noncompliance will result in sanctions. Dated: April 16, 2026 © ¢ Hon. Anthony J. attaglia United States District Judge