Brooke
Brooke v. Rihh LP
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 THERESA BROOKE, Case No. 19-cv-06852-SI
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
9 v. SANCTIONS
10 RIHH LP, Dkt. No. 22 11 Defendant.
12 13 On February 19, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice with the Court (the “First Notice”), to which 14 defendant objected. Dkt. No. 12 (Notice); Dkt. No. 13 (Objections). The Court entered an order on 15 February 28, 2020 striking the First Notice as improper because it did not fall into any category of 16 filings listed in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Northern District Civil Local Rules. Dkt. 17 No. 14 at 1 (Order). 18 On March 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed another notice (the “Second Notice”) and, again, 19 defendant objected. Dkt. No. 18 (Notice); Dkt. No. 19 (Objection). On March 26, 2020, the Court 20 entered an order again striking plaintiff’s Second Notice as improper. Dkt. No. 20 (Order). 21 On March 29, 2020, defendant filed the instant motion for sanctions in the…