Singer v. Waters Esq

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL SINGER, Case No. 1:25-cv-00532-KES-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S SURREPLY OBJECTIONS TO v. DEFENDANT CRAIG C.O. WATERS ESQ’S REPLY AND VACATING AUGUST CRAIG C.O. WATERS ESQ, et al., 20, 2025 HEARING ON MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO DISMISS Defendants. (ECF Nos. 27, 28, 36) On July 7, 2025, Defendant Craig C.O. Waters Esq filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike. (ECF Nos. 27, 28.) The motions have been fully briefed (ECF Nos. 33, 36, 37); however, on July 28, 2025, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed objections by surreply to Defendant’s reply. On July 29, 2025, Plaintiff lodged a declaration of Alex A. Graft. (ECF No. 39.) Pursuant to the District’s Local Rules, “[a]fter a reply is filed, no additional memoranda, papers, or other materials may be filed without prior Court approval . . .” L.R. 230(m). One exception to that rule is that if new evidence was submitted in a reply, an opposing party may file and serve objections to the new evidence within seven days; no further argument may be made. L.R. 230(m)(1). The Court will construe Plaintiff’s surreply as objections to the reply, but the Court will consider the objections only to the extent they address any new evidence purportedly included in the reply. Moreover, because Plaintiff has not sought leave to lodge or file anything further with the Court, the Court will disregard the lodging of the declaration of Alex. A. Graft. Furthermore, in light of the fact that the motions are fully briefed, the Court has—in its discretion—determined to take the motions under submission without a hearing and will vacate the August 20, 2025 hearing. (See ECF Nos. 34, 35.) As a final note, the parties are reminded they must work together to resolve this action. “Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation.” Rush Air Sports, LLC v. RDJ Grp. Holdings, LLC, No. 1:19-cv-00385-LJO-JLT, 2019 WL 4879211, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2019). It is not a proper function of this heavily impacted Court to wade through endless filings on a routine motion. The parties are strongly encouraged to resolve their disputes independently. In doing so, the parties are required to treat each other in a civil, professional, and respectful manner. It is this Court’s endeavor to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of an action as contemplated by Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court expects all parties, including those proceeding pro se, to be familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and previous orders by the Court. See L.R. 183(a). The parties are advised that any future violation of these Rules or a Court order may result in sanctions, including but not limited to stricken filings or monetary sanctions. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS: 1. The Court construes Plaintiff's surreply (ECF No. 38) as objections to Defendant’s reply (ECF No. 37) and will consider them as contemplated by Local Rule 230(m)(1); 2. Plaintiff's notice of lodgment of the declaration of Alex. A. Graft (ECF No. 39) is DISREGARDED; 3, The motions to strike and motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 27, 28, 36) are hereby SUBMITTED; no new filings shall be considered without prior authorization from the Court; and 4. The August 20, 2025 hearing on the motions is hereby VACATED. IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee Dated: _ July 29, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE United States Magistrate Judge