Case 8:12-cv-01507-DOC-AN Document 11

Filed 10/02/12 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:46

1

2

Dr. Orlv TaitzESO. 29839 Santa Marsdrita Pkwv Suite 100 Rancho Santa Ma"rsarita. CA 92688 Phone O49\ 683-541I fax O49t766-7603 Emai I : Orlv.taitz(Esmail.cdm CA Bar lic'ense 2YT433 C ounselor for Plainti ffs

1

B

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Judd et

10 11

al
al

t2
13

)

case l2-cv-1507

v)
Obama et )

Honorable Judge Carter Presiding

74

15 L6

Administrative Motion to correct record is filed in conjunction with a Motion for

STAY and Expedite
Argument

t1
1B

l. Plaintiffs by and through their attorney request to correct

the record on the

t9
20 2L 22
aa

following. The court sua sponte made an entry in the record of the case changing
the schedule for return of summons from 21 days to 60 days, which is the retum
schedule for the federal employees. Plaintiffs request a correction noting that only

federal employees has 60 days to respond, the rest of the plaintiffs have only

2l

days to respond. Federal employees are Donohue, Astrue, Holder, Napolitano and
24

possibly Chatfield, who is retired from the federal government, but is sued in relation to his work, as an employee of the federal government. The other 24
named defendants have to file an answer within 21 days. This is particularly

26 2't
2A

Judd et al v Obama et aI Administrative motion to correct docket

Case 8:12-cv-01507-DOC-AN Document 11

Filed 10/02/12 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:47

1

important as this is an elections case, 2012 election is only one month away and
the time is of the essence. 2. Plaintiffs would like to correct mischaracterization of the case. This case is a

2

3

4

new legal challenge. Out of 30 named defendants,2T defendants are new
defendants. 3 defendants: Feinstein, Emken and Obama are being currently sued in

6

the Superior court of California. Feinstein, Emken and Obama were sued in elections challenge brought pursuant to California elections code 16100, 16101,
16420-16421 Taitz

1

I
9

v Obama et al 30-2012 -00582135 Superior Court of CA Judge
9,2012.

Sanders. Defendants Emken, Feinstein and Obama were served on July

10 11 72 13
T4

The original challenge to the Ca Primary election had to be filed in the state court
pursuant to 16100-16-101. Defendants did not respond to service and the case management conference is set for October 22 before Honorable judge Sanders.

Current case in the federal court is related to the ongoing elections challenge in the

California Superior court. Plaintiffs request to correct the docket in noting that this
is a new case and in relation to three of the 30 defendants it is related to a case

15

fil

t6
L'1

in CA Superior court. Plaintiffs request to treat this case as a case challenging the violation of Constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs and relating to the elections
challenge filed in the state court. In2010, a candidate to the U.S. Senate Joe miller
has filed and elections challenge and an accompanying case of

1B

L9

civil rights

20 2L 22 23
24

violations in the Federal court. In Miller

v

Campbell 3:10-cv-252 RRB U.S.

pistrict Court Judge Ralph Beistline ruled: " . . . Therefore , for the reasons articulated

above and by

Defendants in

their

Motion to

Dismi-ss for

Lack of to Abstain

Federal Question Jurisdiction at Docket Lf , which Plaintlff matter is hereby
STAYED

or in the Alternative

25 26
21
2B

responded to at Docket 20, thj-s

so that the parti-es may bring this The Court shall

dispute before the appropriate State tribunal.

Judd et al v obama et a1 Administrative moti-on to correct docket

Case 8:12-cv-01507-DOC-AN Document 11

Filed 10/02/12 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:48

1

retain jurisdiction

pursuant to pullman and wirl remain
may

2 3

available to review any constitutional issues that

exist

once the State remedies have been exhausted. fn order to ensure

4

that these serious State ]aw issues are resolved prior certification conditionally of the election,
GR,iAIITS

to

5
6

the Court hereby

Plaintiff's

motion to enjoin certification

1 o

9

of the election. If an actlon is filed in State Court on or before Novernber 22, 2OLO, the results of this election shatl not be certified until the legal issues raised therein have been fully and finally resolved.IT IS SO ORDERED.ENTERED this 19th
day of November, 2010.s/RALPH R. BEISTLTNE UNITED STATES
DfSTRICT JUDGE".

10 11 L2 13
T4

Plaintiffs are seeking a notation by the court
Obama

statinq that this is related case to Taitz v
2072-00582135.

et al 30-

15 L6
L'7

Conclusion

1B

Administrative motion should be granted. Docket should

be
21

19 20 2L 22 23 24 25

corrected, reflecting that non-federal defendants have only
days t.o respond.

Correction shoul-d be made reflecting that this is a

new

case, not a removal case, but it is correfated with the state

lections challenge

Taitz v Obama et al 30-2012 -00582135 Superior Court

of CA Judge Glenda Sanders.
Respectfully submitted

26
21
2B

Judd et al v Obama et aI Administrative motion to correct docket

Case 8:12-cv-01507-DOC-AN Document 11

Q

Filed 10/02/12 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:49

1

lslDr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
10.02.2012

2 3
4

5
6

'l
o

9

LO

11 L2 13
L4

15 16
]--7

1"8

79
20 2L 22 Z5 24

25 26
2'1

2B

motion to correct docket Judd et al v Obama et af Administrati-ve

Case 8:12-cv-01507-DOC-AN Document 11

Filed 10/02/12 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:50

Certificate of Service

I, Lila Dubert, not

a party to

this case, I attest that on l0 02.2012 I served

by first class mail all the defendants with the copy of the attached pleadings.

lslLila
10.0

Case 8:12-cv-01507-DOC-AN Document 11

Filed 10/02/12 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:51

L

2

3

4

5
6
'1

Proposed order

B

9

r0
11 L2 13

I4
IJ

L6
L1
1B

I9
2A

2t
22 23
24

25 26
21

28

Judd et al v Obama et al AdminisLratrve

motion to correct

docket

Case 8:12-cv-01507-DOC-AN Document 11

Filed 10/02/12 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:52

1 2
3

4

5
6

U.S. DISTRICT COT]RT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTI{ERN DIVISION
Judd et

1

B

al

9

)

case 12-cv-1507

v)
Obama et

Honorable Judge Carter Presiding

10 11 L2 13 74

al )

Plaintiffs' 10.02.2012 administrative motion to correct docket is
GRANTED.

15 L6

U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter
L7
1B

10

2t
22 Z5 24

25
ZO

27
2B

.Iudd et al v Obama et a1 Administrative motion to correct docket