Dalrada Precision Corp. et al. v. Stuart Cox

District Court, S.D. California·Decided April 16, 2026·No. 3:24-cv-01122·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DALRADA PRECISION CORP. et al., Case No.: 24-cv-1122-AJB-DEB

12 ORDER Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 STUART COX, 15

16 Defendants. 17 The Court has received an email communication from Michele Kinser, who purports 18 to be the Compliance Officer for Plaintiff Dalrada Precision, Corp. Letters and emails to 19 chambers are strictly prohibited unless specifically requested by the Court. See Battaglia 20 Civil Case Procedures § I.A. Accordingly, the Court has not reviewed the email. 21 Courts may impose sanctions for violating court rules, such as local rules and 22 chambers rules. Westhoff Vertriebsges mbH v. Berg, No. 22-CV-938-BAS-SBC, 2023 WL 23 7095112, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2023) (citing Van Osten v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., 24 2021 WL 3471581 (S.D. Cal. 2021) (noting that failure to follow the courts chambers rules 25 is sanctionable conduct). Sanctions for failing to follow court rules may take various forms, 26 including the striking of appropriate pleadings. Smith v. Frank, 923 F.2d 139, 142 (9th Cir. 27 1991). 28 l Here, both Plaintiff Dalrada and Defendant Stuart Cox have repeatedly failed to 2 ||comply with the Federal Rules, Local Rules, and this Court’s Chambers Rules. (See Doc. 3 || Nos. 12; 15; 35; 37; 40; 42-45; 53; 70; 74; 76; 115-16; 118; 131; 134; 138.) For example, 4 ||Plaintiff has filed numerous noncompliant documents on the Court’s Case 5 ||Management/Electronic Case Filing system (“CM/ECF’”). (See, e.g., Doc. Nos. 42-45.) 6 || Likewise, Defendant Cox has repeatedly violated this Court’s Civil Case Procedures by 7 || failing to obtain a hearing date before filing noticed motions. (See, e.g., 28-35; 113-16.) 8 || The Court has warned both parties that future noncompliance with the Federal Rules, Local 9 Rules, or Chambers Rules may result in sanctions. (See Doc. Nos. 12; 15; 35; 37; 40; 53; 10 ||57; 70; 74; 76; 115-16; 118; 138.) The Court will not issue further warnings. Any future 11 |}noncompliance will result in sanctions. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: April 16, 2026 © ¢ 14 Hon. Anthony J. attaglia 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dalrada Precision Corp. et al. v. Stuart Cox, (S.D. Cal. 2026).

Dalrada Precision Corp. et al. v. Stuart Cox (Dalrada Precision Corp. et al. v. Stuart Cox) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jack C. Smith v. Anthony M. Frank
923 F.2d 139 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)