Dalrada Precision Corp. et al. v. Stuart Cox
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court received an unauthorized email from a plaintiff's representative and noted a history of procedural noncompliance by both parties. The court declined to review the email and issued a final warning that any future violations of court rules would result in sanctions.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Court declined to review the unauthorized email from Michele Kinser.“Accordingly, the Court has not reviewed the email.” | agree with court The court correctly applied its local rules prohibiting unsolicited communications to chambers. Refusing to consider unauthorized submissions is a standard administrative function of the court. |
Court issued a final warning to both parties that future noncompliance with Federal Rules, Local Rules, or Chambers Rules will result in sanctions.“The Court will not issue further warnings. Any future noncompliance will result in sanctions.” | agree with court The court has broad discretion to manage its docket and enforce compliance with its rules. Given the recited history of repeated violations by both parties, a final warning is a reasonable and proportionate procedural measure. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the violation of local rules regarding communications to chambers and cites appropriate authority for the court's power to sanction noncompliance. The decision to issue a final warning rather than immediate sanctions is consistent with the court's inherent authority to manage its proceedings and the recited history of prior warnings.
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