Sherman v. Kruse

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 JANET SHELLMAN SHERMAN, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00408-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO STRIKE v. IMPROPER REPLY 13 JAMES A KRUSE et al., 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Dennis Schilling’s Motion Striking 17 Improper Pleading. Dkt. No. 41. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s 18 motion. 19 Courts have inherent power “to manage their own affairs as to achieve the orderly and 20 expeditious disposition of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 45 (2016) (internal citations 21 omitted); see also United States v. W.R.Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008) (“There is a 22 well established principle that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets.” 23 (cleaned up) (internal citation omitted)). While Defendant improperly noted the motion as a same 24 1 day motion, the Court nonetheless issues this order prior to the proper noting date to manage its 2 docket and advise Plaintiff as to what are proper filings. 3 Defendant Schilling seeks to strike Plaintiff’s reply (Dkt. No. 40) to a notice of 4 appearance filed by one of his attorneys (Dkt. No. 33). Defendant Schilling correctly points out

5 that this reply is not one of the types of pleadings that is allowed to be filed with the Court. Dkt. 6 No. 41 at 2 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)). In addition to proper motions, the only types of 7 pleadings allowed are: “(1) a complaint; (2) an answer to a complaint; (3) an answer to a 8 counterclaim designated as a counterclaim; (4) an answer to a crossclaim; (5) a third-party 9 complaint; (6) an answer to a third-party complaint; and (7) if the court orders one, a reply to an 10 answer.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) and (b). Defendant Schilling is also correct that this improper filing 11 provides information that is immaterial to the issues before the Court. Id. at 3. 12 Additionally, the Court’s July 18, 2024, Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status 13 Report, and Early Settlement directs all Counsel and pro se (unrepresented) Parties to review 14 Judge Lin’s Chambers Procedures. Dkt. No. 36 at 2. Those Chambers Procedures instruct that

15 Parties must make a meaningful effort to confer before filing any motions. Judge Tana Lin, 16 Standing Order for All Civil Cases, Section II(D), available at 17 https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/judges/lin-procedures. “The purpose of a meet and confer is to 18 lessen the burden on the Court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants 19 . . . by ensuring that only genuine disagreements are brought before the Court.” Sampson v. 20 Knight Transp., No. C17-28, 2022 WL 268818, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 28, 2022) (cleaned up) 21 (internal citations omitted). While several litigants in this matter are proceeding without 22 attorneys, they are bound by the same procedural requirements as other litigants. See Muñoz v. 23 United States, 28 F.4th 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[I]t is axiomatic that pro se litigants, whatever

24 1 their ability level, are subject to the same procedural requirements as other litigants.”) (internal 2 citations omitted). 3 Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant Schilling’s motion (Dkt. No. 41) and STRIKES 4 from the record Plaintiff’s improper pleading entitled “Addressing Issues associated with

5 Liability and Vulnerability to Liability with reference to Defendant Dennis Schilling 6 Corporation” (Dkt. No. 40). 7 Dated this 30th day of July 2024. 8 A 9 Tana Lin United States District Judge 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24