Case Information

*1 Case 2:08-cv-02100-GEB-DAD Document 23 Filed 01/07/09 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARCELA VASCONCELOS-FLOREZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-2100 GEB DAD PS vs.

WORLD SAVINGS BANK, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

By order filed on November 24, 2008, plaintiff was granted thirty days to file an amended complaint. On December 19, 2008, plaintiff requested an extension of time to file her amended complaint. However, plaintiff filed a timely amended complaint on December 22, 2008. Plaintiff’s request for extension of time will be denied as unnecessary.

On December 22, 2008, plaintiff filed a proposed order titled “Judicial Approval of Recording of ‘Notice of Pending Action Affecting Real Property’ (Lis Pendens).” Plaintiff did not file a noticed motion with a memorandum of points and authorities and supporting documents, as required by Local Rule 78-230. Plaintiff’s proposed order and attached lis pendens do not establish a legal basis for the requested order and do not demonstrate plaintiff’s entitlement to such an order. Plaintiff’s request for a court order will be denied without prejudice.

*2 Case 2:08-cv-02100-GEB-DAD Document 23 Filed 01/07/09 Page 2 of 2 On December 22, 2008, plaintiff also filed a document titled “Motion to Sanction - Changes of Jurisdiction Based Upon Violation of the Doctrine of Latches ... And ... Fraudulent ‘Open-End’ Security (Borrower-Lender) Contractual Agreement ... And ... Illegitimate Legal Counsel of the Defense ... (-With...-Amendment to (08/07/2008) Complaint: Rename Defendants.” Plaintiff did not notice this motion for hearing, as required by Local Rule 78-230, and the motion does not include any citations to legal authorities relevant to a motion for sanctions. For these reasons, the motion will be denied without prejudice. Moreover, the motion appears to be an untimely motion for remand without citation to any authority that permits the filing of a remand motion outside the time specified by the removal statute. Plaintiff’s assertions regarding defendants’ counsel are not supported by the public records proffered as exhibits and do not appear to provide any basis for sanctions.

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 19, 2008 request for extension of time (Doc. No. 17) is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s December 22, 2008 request for an order authorizing plaintiff to record a lis pendens against real property in San Joaquin County (Doc. No. 19) is denied; 3. Plaintiff’s December 22, 2008 motion for sanctions (Doc. No. 20) is denied.

DATED: January 7, 2009.

DAD:kw

Ddad1\orders.prose\vasconcelosflorez2100.ord.mots