>

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Dotument 95 Filed 03/08/13 “Page of4-PageiD #2272

eee
\

TWNISIHO F2:

fprewem—rerh,
tt OED

Peter Hansmeier

Specially Appearing

b
1

FILED :
CLERK, US. DISTRICT. court

Pro Se
Livewire Holdings, LLC
2100 M St. NW

Suite 170-417

Washington DC 20037- 1233

(888)- 588. 9473/FAX (888)-964-9473

__ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT *
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INGENUITY 13 LLC, Case No. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW(JCx)

Plaintiff, > | EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
ORDER WITHDRAWING ORDER
v. . - FOR PETER HANSMEIER TO

JOHN DOE,

APPEAR

Judge: ~ Hon. Otis D: Wright, 1
Defendant. . Magistrate Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Chooljian
Courtroom: 1]
Date:
Time: ~

Complaint Filed: September 27, 2012
Trial Date: None set

I,

INTRODUCTION

On March 5, 2013, this Court issued an order that eight individuals would
have to appear before this Court on March 1 1, 2013. But this Court lacks
jurisdiction to order those individuals to appear in that they reside outside
California, are not parties to this litigation, and do not represent parties to this .
action.

Moreover, although some of these individuals may have received service of

the order as the Court ordered, the undersigned individual did not.

ro

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR. ORDER WITHDRAWING ORDER FOR PETER HANSMEIER TO APPEAR

SOo CONS CN Ur BR IN

_ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER WITHDRAWING ORDER FOR PETER HANSMEIER TO APPEAR

‘Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC “Dpcument 95 Filed 03/08/13 Page 2)pf4 Page ID #:2273

7
i

Further, the undersigned individual has not received a reasonable amount of
notice to accommodate cross-country travel or information regarding who will pay
for such travel. Based on these factors, the Court should withdraw its order for
Hansmeier to appear on Monday, March 11, 2013 at 1:30 P.M. .

IT.
THE COURT LACKS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THOSE IT HAS
ORDERED TO APPEAR
Even where the Court seeks to adjudicate issues between parties, it must

have personal jurisdiction over them. Here, Hansmeier is not a party. As such, the

public policy behind the need to determine personal juri sdiction is arguably at an

elevated level because, as an individual, he effectively has “no dog in this fight.”

Ordinarily, feder al courts do not have nationwide per sonal j jur isdiction. With

|| few exceptions, they have no broader power over persons outside the state in

which they sit than do the local state courts. Omni Capital Int’, Ltd. v. Rudolph
Wolff & Co., Ltd. (1987) 484 U.S. 97, 104-105.

Here, because his is not a party to this action, Hansmeier can be nothing -
more than witnesses. California Code of Civil Procedure section 1989 provides
that “a witness. . . is not obliged to attend as a witness before any court, judge,
justice or any other officer, unless the witness is a resident within the state at the
time of service.” Hansmeier does not reside in California. Decl. of Hansmeier, j ea
Thus, the Court respectfully lacks j jar isdiction to order him to appear.

I.
‘ HANSMEIER DID NOT RECEIVE REASONABLE NOTICE OF THIS
PROCEEDING

Due process mandates that a respondent to a Rule 11 sanctions motion
receive reasonable notice of the sanctions being sought and the opportunity to
submit an opposition, Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 1(c)(1); Miranda v. Southern Pac. Transp.
Co., 710 F.2d 516, 522 (9th Cir. 1983). This applies equally to sanctions imposed .

oe

‘Case 2:12-cy-08333-ODW-JC’ Document 95 Filed 03/08/13 Page 3jof 4 Page ID #:2274

pone:

Oe OR INQ me

16

Noe Ma [io ©, in ECC

ORDEAL EUROPE CHOLES OIET SOO MUOUETESUSOUS EH EOUE SIONS ONE NNEN ONES OENADNOP I RTCA ANC NOLO NAAN E OETA GALEN EMELINE HEME SN ONLINE ED PPE COO OCALA NOON AAT,
~ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER WITHDRAWING ORDER FOR PETER HANSMEIER TO APPEAR

sua sponte by the Court. So, before imposing sanctions, the Court must issue an
order to show cause why the respondent has not violated Rule 11 and allow the
party to be heard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3); Simmerman y. Corino, 27 F.3d 58, 64
(3rd Cir. 1994); Marlin v. Moody Nat’] Bank, N.A., 533 F.3d. 374, 379 (Sth Cir.
2008). |

Although the undersigned submitting this application has been unable to
identify any authority addressing the notice requirements to witnesses ordered to
appear at such hearings, logic dictates that such individuals should at least be

similarly accommodated with reasonable notice. Here, the Court’s March 5, 2013

order that notice be provided by March 7, 2013 to attend a March 11, 2013 hearing

with no further information is fundamentally unreasonable.

~ As set forth above, Hansmeier resides out-of-state, He has a job that
demands his attendance on the upcoming Monday. As such, providing two to three
days’ business notice that he needs to travel across the country for a hearmg in a
case involving third-parties is inherently unreasonable in that it could adversely
impact his employment and he was never even formally served. with the Court’s
order.

Further, the notice that he appear was absent any information regarding the

_reason for his appearance. Presumptively, it would be to provide testimony, but the

Court has issued no order identifying what the scope of that testimony might be.
Without such notice, the witness may not properly prepare and is, therefore,
deprived of due process. |

Finally, witnesses are entitled not only to receive payment for his

attendance, but also for travel expenses. 28 U.S.C. § 1821 (2013). But, the Court’s

order not only fails to provide who will compensate him for his time and these
expenses, but that he will be compensated at all. Given the considerable expense of
traveling such distances, especially on such short notice when many common

carriers may not have seats available, this is a significant issue.

aie

‘

w+ ~ *Case 2:12-cy-08333-ODW-JC* Document 95 Filed 03/08/13 Page 4of4 Page ID #:2275

For these reasons, even if the Court had jurisdiction over Hansmeier, the

I
2 || notice would be unreasonable to him and the Court should, ata minimum, have to —
3 || withdraw the order and issue a new one for a future date that would afford Mr.
4 || Hansmeier reasonable notice of ihe hearing, his rights, and the purpose for his
5 || appearance.
6 Iv.
7 CONCLUSION
8 The Court does not have jurisdiction to order out-of-state resident
9 || Hansmeier to appear as witnesses at a hearing. And, even if it did, the notice that
10 || Court provided for Hansmeier to travel across the country was incomplete and
11 || inadequate. For these reasons, the Court should withdraw its March 5, 2013 order
12. || requiring him to appear in California on March 11, 2013. :
| 13 . |
| 14 ly, Submitted
| 15
16 || DATED: March 8. 2013 wi
17 |} Specially Appearing Pro Se
18.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
at
28

|
-4.
ntti NINE NN TAO TDI OTN NLR IN ACC MEET
BX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER WITHDRAWING ORDER FOR PETER HANSMEIER. TO APPEAR