Ashcraft v. First-Citizens Bank and Trust Co., No. 2:26-cv-02251-JLS (Central District of Cal. (C.D. CAL) Mar. 25, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Jared Ashcraft v. First-Citizens Bank and Trust Company
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Central District of California (C.D. CAL)
Decided
Mar. 25, 2026
Disposition
Motion Denied
Jared Ashcraft v. First-Citizens Bank and Trust Company, et al., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 851435Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, C.D. California.Jared Ashcraftv.First-Citizens Bank and Trust Company, et al.Case No. 2:26-cv-02251-JLS (JDEx)|Filed 03/25/2026Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion of citationreferences that are incorrect or do not actually exist. Theseinvalid citations appeared in the original court opinion andhave been preserved as written since they are part of theofficial record. Any links to these invalid citations have beenremoved.Attorneys and Law FirmsAmber Rodriguez, Deputy Clerk, Attorneys Present forPlaintiff(s): n/an/a, Court Reporter / Recorder, Attorneys Present forDefendant(s): n/aJared Ashcraft, N Las Vegas, NV, Pro Se.Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order DenyingMotion for Discovery Sanctions (Dkt. 19)The Honorable John D. Early, United States Magistrate JudgeI.INTRODUCTION*1 On March 2, 2026, Plaintiff Jared Ashcraft (“Plaintiff”)commenced this action by filing a 274-page Complaint withattachments against First-Citizens Bank and Trust Companyand First Citizens Bancshares, Inc. (“Defendants”). Dkt. 1.Nineteen days after filing the Complaint, on March 21,2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions for Spoliationof Electronically Stored Information Under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 37(e) and for Supplemental Sanctions, withsupporting materials, totaling 212 pages, noticed for hearingon April 23, 2026. Dkt. 19 (“Motion”).The Court finds the Motion may appropriately be decidedwithout further briefing or oral argument and vacates thehearing on the Motion. For the reasons set forth below, theMotion (Dkt. 19) is DENIED.II.RELEVANT LAWRegarding motions relating to discovery filed in this district,Central District of California Local Civil Rule (“L.R.”) 37-1instructs:Before filing any motion relating todiscovery under F. Rs. Civ. P. 26-37,counsel for the parties must conferin a good-faith effort to eliminate thenecessity for hearing the motion orto eliminate as many of the disputesas possible. It is the responsibilityof counsel for the moving party toarrange for this conference. If bothcounsel are located in the same county,the conference must take place inperson at the office of the movingparty's counsel unless the partiesagree to meet someplace else. If bothcounsel are not located in the samecounty, the conference may take placetelephonically. Unless relieved bywritten order of the Court upon goodcause shown, counsel for the opposingparty must confer with counsel for themoving party within ten days after themoving party serves a letter requestingsuch conference. The moving party'sletter must identify each issue and/or discovery request in dispute, statebriefly as to each such issue/requestthe moving party's position (andprovide any legal authority the movingparty believes is dispositive of thedispute as to that issue/request), and
Jared Ashcraft v. First-Citizens Bank and Trust Company, et al., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2specify the terms of the discoveryorder to be sought.L.R. 37-2 directs that if, after the completion of the conferencedescribed in L.R. 37-1, counsel “are unable to settle theirdifferences, they must formulate a written stipulation unlessotherwise ordered by the Court.” Separately, L.R. 37-2.1instructs, in part: “[t]he stipulation must contain all issues indispute and, as to each such issue, the contentions and pointsand authorities of each party.” Local Rule 37-2.4 provides:The Court will not consider anydiscovery motion in the absence ofa joint stipulation or a declarationfrom counsel for the moving partyestablishing that opposing counsel (a)failed to confer in a timely mannerunder L.R. 37-1; (b) failed to providethe opposing party's portion of the jointstipulation in a timely manner underL.R. 37-2.2; or (c) refused to sign andreturn the joint stipulation after theopposing party's portion was added.If such declaration accompanies themotion, then L.Rs. 6-1, 7-9 and 7-10apply.*2 Courts may deny discovery motions for failure to complywith the Local Rules' requirements for such motions. SeePina v. Lewis, 717 F. App'x 739, 740 (9th Cir. 2018) (districtcourt may properly deny a motion to compel “for failing tocomply with local rules”); see also Tri-Valley CARES v. U.S.Dep't of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Denialof a motion as the result of a failure to comply with localrules is well within a district court's discretion.”); LumberLiquidators, Inc. v. Sullivan, 2012 WL 4464867, at *4 (C.D.Cal. Aug. 31, 2012) (denying discovery motion for failure tocomply with L.R. 37-2); So v. Land Base, LLC, 2009 WL2407954, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2009) (same).III.DISCUSSIONPlaintiff set the Motion for hearing as a discovery motion andagrees that L.R. 37-1, et seq., governs the procedures for theMotion.As Plaintiff notes, as the Motion does not include a L.R. 37-2Joint Stipulation, Plaintiff must comply with L.R. 37-2.4 inorder to proceed. To do so, Plaintiff must establish one of threegrounds upon which a discovery motion may proceed withouta joint stipulation under L.R. 37-2.4, that is, that counsel fordefendants failed to: (1) meet and confer within ten days ofreceiving a compliant L.R. 37-1 letter; (2) return their portionof a joint stipulation within seven days of receiving Plaintiffportion after an L.R. 37-1 conference; or (3) sign a completedJoint Stipulation within a day after receiving it.As noted, Plaintiff filed this action on March 2, 2026.The Court had no jurisdiction over Defendants until theywere served with a valid summons and the operativeComplaint (and Defendants, as corporations, could not appearin this action except through designated counsel). Plaintiffpurportedly served process upon Defendants on March 13,2026. See Dkt. 12-14. However, based on a review of thedocket, although Plaintiff has requested the Clerk to issuesummonses for Defendants, the Clerk had not issued anysuch summons on or before March 13, 2026. See generally,Docket. As such, it is unclear how Plaintiff could haveserved a valid summons on Defendants, and without properservice of a valid summons, neither Defendant has beenproperly served with process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b), (c)(1). Absent such service, the Court lacks personal jurisdictionover Defendants and Plaintiff may not seek sanctions againstsuch unserved parties.Nonetheless, even assuming Defendants were properly servedwith a proper summons and the Complaint on March 13,2026, Defendants would not have been subject to this Court'srules of procedure before that time. Thus, again assuming aproper service of process had been effected on March 13,2026, the earliest Plaintiff could have sent a compliant L.R.37-1 meet and confer letter to Defendants' counsel of recordwas March 13. The Motion was filed eight days later, onMarch 21. Thus, giving Plaintiff the benefit of every doubt,including assuming Plaintiff sent a valid L.R. 37-1 letter onthat earliest day possible, March 13, Defendants would havehad ten days, until March 23, to participate in a L.R. 37-1conference.1 The Motion was filed two days before thatdeadline had run. As such, Plaintiff has not “establish[ed]”that Defendants “failed to confer in a timely manner underL.R. 37-1” as required by L.R. 37-2.4(a). Further, as a proper
Jared Ashcraft v. First-Citizens Bank and Trust Company, et al., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3meet and confer is a prerequisite to the preparation of anL.R. 37-2.2 Joint Stipulation (see L.R. 37-2 (“[i]f counselare unable to settle their differences, they must formulate awritten stipulation”), Defendants were under no obligationto participate in the preparation of a Joint Stipulation. Assuch, Plaintiff has not “establish[ed]” that Defendants failedto timely provide their portions of a Joint Stipulation or failedto timely sign a Joint Stipulation.*3 Plaintiff has thus not established any basis for him toproceed without a Joint Stipulation under L.R. 37-2.4. Assuch, the “Court will not consider” the Motion and the Motionis denied. See id.; see also Pina, 717 F. App'x at 740; Tri-Valley CARES, 671 F.3d at 113; Lumber Liquidators, Inc.,2012 WL 4464867, at *4; So, 2009 WL 2407954, at *2.Lastly, although not a basis for the denial of the Motion here,the Court directs Plaintiff to Rule 26(d)(1) of the FederalRules of Civil Procedure regarding the timing of discovery.IV.CONCLUSIONFor the foregoing reasons, the Motion (Dkt. 19) is DENIED.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ADVISEMENT TO PLAINTIFF: Whether pro se orrepresented, parties who file pleadings, motions, applications,or other documents with the Court are subject to theLocal Rules of this Court (see L.R. 1-3), includingsanctions for presenting “frivolous motions or oppositionsto motions” (L.R. 11-9), and such sanctions may includemonetary sanctions, imposition of an opposing party's costsand attorney's fees, and other sanctions.Separately, Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedureprovides:By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, orother paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, orlater advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented partycertifies that to the best of the person's knowledge,information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonableunder the circumstances:(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose,such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlesslyincrease the cost of litigation;(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions arewarranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argumentfor extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or forestablishing new law;(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or,if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiarysupport after a reasonable opportunity for furtherinvestigation or discovery; and(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on theevidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonablybased on belief or a lack of information.Rule 11(c) sets for the sanctions that may be imposed forviolation of Rule 11(a), as well as the procedures to befollowed if such sanctions are sought. The Court may, on itsown, under Rule 11(c)(3) issue an order to show cause whyconduct has not violated Rule 11(b). The sanctions that maybe imposed for a violation under Rule 11 include monetarysanctions. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g); L.R. 37-4.Further, “[d]istrict courts have the inherent power to controltheir dockets and in the exercise of that power they mayimpose sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal of acase.” Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9thCir. 2000); see also Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630(1962). “Because inherent powers are shielded from directdemocratic controls, they must be exercised with restraint anddiscretion.” Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764(1980). However, “[d]ismissal under a court's inherent powersis justified in extreme circumstances, in response to abusivelitigation practices, and to insure the orderly administration ofjustice and the integrity of the court's orders.” Halaco Eng'gCo. v. Costle, 843 F.2d 376, 380 (9th Cir. 1988) (as amended)(internal citations omitted).*4 At page 16 of the Motion, Plaintiff cites the followingcases (written as cited): “GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc.,No. 12-cv-1247, 2016 WL 3635771, at *4–5 (D. Del. June29, 2016)” in support of the proposition: “Intent under Rule37(e)(2) may be proven circumstantially, including by post-hold deletion combined with concealment and inconsistentrepresentations.”
Jared Ashcraft v. First-Citizens Bank and Trust Company, et al., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4The Court has been unable to locate a case matching thatdescription using the Westlaw citation provided by Plaintiff;to the contrary, a search of Westlaw by the Court of “2016WL 3635771” resulted in “No documents found.” Similarly, asearch of the electronic docket for the District of Delaware forcase number “12-cv-1247” results in a single match, for casenumber 1:12-cv-01247-RGA, but that case bears a differenttitle and was closed in 2014, more than two years before thedate of the opinion cited by Plaintiff. The Court was able tolocate a case that was pending in the District of Delawaretitled GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, but the case numberis not “12-cv-1247,” but was instead 1:12-cv-01318-LPA.However, not only did that case bear a different Delawarecase number than the one cited by Plaintiff, the electronicdocket for that case does not reflect any orders issued or otherfilings on “June 29, 2016,” the date listed by Plaintiff as thedate of the opinion he cites. The Court notes that there waspending in Delaware District Court a case, GN Netcom, Inc.v. Plantronics, Case No. 1:12-cv-01318-LPA, although witha different case number and no attendant orders or opinionsreflected on the public docket as having been issued onJune 29, 2016, that did involve a motion for sanctions underFederal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37(e).As the Court has denied the Motion for other reasons beforeany opposition was filed, the Court does not delve further intothe citation to the foregoing case by Plaintiff and makes nofindings on the issue. Similarly, although Plaintiff submitted“Proofs of Service” that purport reflect service of summonsesthat do not yet appear to have been issued by the Clerk'sOffice, as the Court has denied the Motion, no further findingson that apparent discrepancy are made herein. Nonetheless,Plaintiff is hereby advised that the presentation of falsecitations to cases or other materials in briefs filed with theCourt may result in sanctions imposed on attorneys and prose parties. See United States v. Hayes, 763 F. Supp.3d 1054,1071 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (collecting cases).All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 851435Footnotes1That Plaintiff may have sent email demands to meet and confer to representatives of Defendants beforeMarch 13 does not change the result because Defendants were not subject to the Court's jurisdiction beforeMarch 13 and thus were not subject to the L.R. 37-1 before that date.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access