Edwards et al v. Department of State Hospitals (DSH)- Coalinga et al, No. 1:2013cv00105 - Document 54 (E.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER STRIKING Plaintiffs' Motion for a Final Judgment as Untimely 51 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/30/13. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 LARRY L. EDWARDS; ALAN M. HILDRETH, Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITAL -- COALINGA (FORMERLY DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH – COALINGA); PAMELA AHLIN; DAVID MONTOYA; ANDREW BERARD; ROBERT OLIVERA, 1:13 – CV- 0105 AWI MJS ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A FINAL JUDGMENT AS UNTIMELY Doc. # 51 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In this action for damages, defendants Department of State Hospital – Coalinga, et al. (“Defendants”) have moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of plaintiffs Larry L. Edwards and Alan M. Hildreth (“Plaintiffs”). That motion is currently under submission. On October 11, 2013, Plaintiffs filed the document titled “Motion for a Final Judgment” that is the subject of this order. The court notes that in a prior order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ original complaint filed on May 17, 2013, (the “May 17 Order”) (Document No. 43) 27 the court provided a brief explanation of the necessary elements of a complaint and noted that 28 1 1 several intervening motions by Plaintiffs were untimely and therefore inappropriate. The court 2 wishes to take this opportunity to add briefly to the information previously provided in the May 3 17 Order by informing Plaintiffs that the court generally follows a sequence of procedures that 4 begins with the a complaint followed by either an answer or a motion to dismiss. This sequence 5 can be repeated two or three times until the court determines which claims, if any, are adequately 6 stated. The parties then submit information for a scheduling conference after which the court 7 issues deadlines for the completion of the various stages of a litigation: discovery, motions for 8 summary judgment, pre-trial motions and trial. At no time during this process is it appropriate for 9 a party to try to shortcut the process by filing a motion for final judgment. 10 Plaintiffs are encouraged to realize that this process may take a good deal more time than 11 they may expect; especially since increasing workloads for the court have resulted in significant 12 backlogs of issues to be resolved. Actions such as the one commenced by Plaintiffs seldom 13 resolve in less than two years. Patience and adherence to the process directed by the court is 14 strongly advised. 15 16 It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for a Final Judgment”, Document No. 5, 17 is hereby STRUCK as untimely. The hearing date of November 4, 2013, is hereby VACATED 18 and no party shall appear at that time. 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 30, 2013 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
