United States District Court, D. Arizona
S. WILLETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Order addresses a number of pending Motions (Docs. 35, 38,
43, 45, 51, 52, 55).
Plaintiff's “Defendant Winfred Williams Failure to
Follow any Rules of the Court. Judgement Requested”
(Doc. 35) and “Default Judgement Requested against
Defendant Winfred Williams” (Doc. 38)
documents filed on February 16, 2018 and March 2, 2018 (Docs.
35, 38), Plaintiff seeks the entry of a default judgment
against Defendant Williams. Defendant Williams executed a
Waiver of Service of Summons as to Plaintiff's Complaint
(Doc. 1) on August 13, 2017. (Doc. 11 at 2). On March 9,
2018, Defendant Williams filed an Answer to Plaintiff's
First Amended Complaint (Doc. 39). Defendant Williams has
responded to Plaintiff's “Default Judgement
Requested against Defendant Winfred Williams” (Doc.
38). (Doc. 40). As they are dispositive in nature,
Plaintiffs' filings (Docs. 35, 38) requesting default
judgment against Defendant Williams will be referred to the
Plaintiff's “Request to dismiss Defendant
Williams' Counsel to Represent him and void any and all
Motions filed as Unlawful and in Violation of the Courts
[sic] Rules” (Doc. 43)
March 27, 2018 filing (Doc. 43 at 3), Plaintiff requests that
the Court “deny Defendant Williams counsel by Nichole
Rowey Bar No. 028140 and Anthony Fernandez Bar No. 018342 and
also by anybody associated with Corizon's counsel firms
Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer P.A., also Renaud, Cook,
Drury, Masaros P.A. Corizon's other counsel for
lawsuits[.]” Plaintiff alleges that both of these firms
“have shown they will disobey Rules of the Courts,
fraudulently forge documents and send perjured documents to
the Courts in hopes that because they are huge law firms the
Courts will believe they are above that.”
to disqualify counsel are “subjected to particularly
strict judicial scrutiny.” Optyl Eyewear Fashion
Int'l Corp. v. Style Cos., 760 F.2d 1045, 1050 (9th
Cir. 1985) (quotations omitted). Disqualification is a
“drastic measure which courts should hesitate to impose
except when absolutely necessary.” Schiessle v.
Stephens, 717 F.2d 417, 420 (7th Cir. 1983). To be
justified, a motion to disqualify must be based on present
concerns and not concerns which are merely anticipatory and
speculative. In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings,
etc., 658 F.2d 1355, 1361 (9th Cir. 1981).
Court does not find that Plaintiff's general and
conclusory allegations provide good cause to disqualify
Defendant Williams' counsel. Plaintiff's
“Request to Dismiss Defendant Williams' Counsel . .
.” (Doc. 43) therefore will be denied.
Plaintiff's Motions to Compel (Docs. 45, 51, 52)
December 29, 2017, the Court issued a Scheduling Order
setting forth a procedure for resolving discovery disputes.
(Doc. 25 at 3). In bold letters, the Court advised the
parties that the Court will not consider a motion regarding
discovery matters unless (i) the parties have attempted to
resolve the matter through personal consultation and sincere
effort as required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(j)
and (ii) the parties have participated in a discovery
conference with the Court. The Scheduling Order set forth the
requirements for filing a request for a discovery conference,
and informed the parties that a request that does not comply
with those requirements may be stricken. (Id.).
Finally, the Court advised the parties in bold letters that a
discovery motion that is filed in noncompliance with the
requirements set forth in the Scheduling Order may be
stricken. (Id.). Plaintiff has filed the following
motions pertaining to discovery:
1. “Motion to Compell [sic] Discovery Requests
Defendant Thude” (Doc. 45)
2. “Motion to Compel Defendant Williams to Comply with
Discovery, Interrogattories [sic], Admittances” (Doc.
3. “Motion to Compel from Request for Production”
(Doc. 52); Plaintiff's discovery motions do not comply
with the requirements set forth in the Court's Scheduling