Khokhar v. J C K American Transport, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Sachin Khokhar filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Defendants JCK American Transport, Inc. and Azad Pawar without first obtaining a hearing date from the court's clerk, in violation of Civil Local Rules 7.1(b) and 7.1(f)(1). The Court struck the motion and ordered the Plaintiff to refile and serve the motion within fourteen days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Default Judgment Striked“Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the Motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the local rules requiring a hearing date to be set before filing a motion. The order cites the specific local rules violated (7.1(b) and 7.1(f)(1)) and relies on binding district court precedent (Kashin) to support the conclusion that failure to comply is a substantial violation warranting striking. The remedy of striking and allowing refiling is consistent with the court's inherent power and local rule 83.1(a). |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It identifies the specific local rule violations, cites relevant case law from the same district that has been affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, and applies the appropriate sanction (striking) while providing a clear path for correction (refiling). The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the procedural defect.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SACHIN KHOKHAR, on behalf of Case No.: 23-CV-1211 JLS (DDL) himself and others similarly situated, 12 ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 MOTION FOR DEFAULT v. JUDGMENT 14 J C K AMERICAN TRANSPORT, INC., 15 (ECF No. 10) and AZAD PAWAR, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Sachin Khokhar’s Motion for Default 19 Judgment (“Mot.,” ECF No. 10), filed as to Defendants JCK American Transport, Inc., and 20 Azad Pawar (collectively, “Defendants”). In violation of Civil Local Rules 7.1(b) and 21 7.1(f)(1), Plaintiff filed the Motion without first obtaining a hearing date from chambers. 22 “The requirement that a party obtain a hearing date from the judge’s clerk is no empty 23 formality; it is a rule of substantial importance. . . . [T]he hearing date sets in motion a 24 calendar for the filing of opposition and reply briefs.” Kashin v. Kent, No. 02-CV-2495- 25 LAB (WMC), 2007 WL 1975435, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2007), aff’d, 342 F. App’x 341 26 (9th Cir. 2009). Indeed, Plaintiff’s Motion notes the impact of hearing dates under this 27 District’s Local Rules. Mot. at 1. 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the Motion. See Kashin, 2007 WL 1975435, 2 *2 (striking motion for failing to secure a hearing date in accordance with local rules); 3 ||S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.1(a) (noting failure to comply with Civil Local Rules “may be grounds 4 ||for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within 5 || the inherent power of the Court”). Plaintiff SHALL (1) REFILE the Motion in accordance 6 || with the appropriate Court procedures within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order; 7 (2) SERVE the refiled motion on Defendants. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ||Dated: June 20, 2024 psi L. Lo meeaitie- 10 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28