Reitmeier et al v. Fant et al

1
3:25-cv-3571-JES-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PAUL REITMEIER, an individual; AJH
INVESTMENT, LLC, a California limited
liability company,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DOUGLAS V. FANT, an individual;
LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS V.
FANT PLC, an Arizona professional law
corporation; A.L. SANDY MCDONALD,
an individual; TENAMYD SG PTE LTD,
a Singapore corporation; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-3571-JES-VET
ORDER:
(1) STRIKING DOCUMENTS
TITLED REQUEST TO APPEAR
PRO HAC VICE AT DOCKET
ENTRY 3 and 6; and
(2) STRIKING DOCUMENT TITLED
JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION AT
DOCKET ENTRY 9
On December 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant action against various Defendants,
alleging violations of breach of contract. ECF No. 1. On January 7, 2026, Defendant filed
a document titled “Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice,” which had several exhibits attached
to the document. ECF No. 3. That same day, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Improper Disclosure
of Confidential Financial Information and Request for Corrective Action regarding the
disclosure of Plaintiff’s financial information in the exhibits attached to the Request to
Case 3:25-cv-03571-JES-VET Document 10 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
3:25-cv-3571-JES-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Appear Pro Hac Vice. ECF No. 4. On January 8, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to take
corrective action within seven days of the date of the Order to properly redact versions of
all exhibits identified in Plaintiffs’ notice that contained unredacted financial account
numbers, routing numbers, SWIFT codes, or other financial identifiers protected under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 5.2(a) and furthered ordered Plaintiff to display
only the last four digits of any account number or identifier. ECF No. 5. On January 9,
2026, Plaintiff filed another document titled “Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice.” ECF No.
6. Once again, this document contained unredacted financial account numbers, routing
numbers and other financial identifiers protected under FRCP 5.2(a). See generally Id.
The Court scheduled an informal virtual conference with both counsel on January
12, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. to discuss these issues. The Court and counsel for Plaintiff appeared
timely and waited for counsel for Defendants. At 10:14 a.m., the Court terminated the
virtual conference after the Court and Plaintiff’s counsel had been waiting for over fifteen
minutes with no appearance from Defendants counsel. Defendants’ counsel later contacted
chambers and indicated he was appearing virtually, and no one was present. The Court
indicated to both counsel it would file an order.
On January 20, 2026, Defendants filed a document titled “Joint Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Jurisdiction.” ECF No. 9. This motion does not comply with this Court’s Local
Rules or Civil Chambers Rules. Civil Local Rule 7.1(b) requires that “[a]ll hearing dates
for any matters on which a ruling is required must be obtained from the clerk of the judge
to whom the case is assigned.” Civ. L.R. 7.1(b). This Court’s Civil Chambers Rule III.A.
requires “any party contemplating the filing of any noticed motion before this Court must
first contact opposing counsel to thoroughly discuss the substance of the motion and
attempt to resolve the matter informally,” and the “moving party must include in the motion
papers a declaration to the following effect: ‘This motion is made following the conference
of counsel that took place on [date].’” Civil Chambers Rule III.A. Defendants did not
include any reference to meeting and conferring with opposing counsel prior to filing the
motion and did not call chambers to request a hearing date prior to filing the motion.
Case 3:25-cv-03571-JES-VET Document 10 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
3:25-cv-3571-JES-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In light of the inclusion of unredacted financial account information in both filings,
the Court STRIKES the Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice at ECF Nos. 4 and 6. Further,
for failure to comply with the Court’s Local Rules and Civil Chambers Rules, the Court
REJECTS the Joint Motion to Dismiss at ECF No. 9 and orders the Clerk to STRIKE the
document from the docket. Any further failure to comply with the FRCP, the Local Rules
or the Court’s Chambers Rules may lead to penalties pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.1 or
Criminal Local Rule 57.1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 20, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03571-JES-VET Document 10 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3