Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gause v. Thude

United States District Court, D. Arizona

April 24, 2018

Richard LeGrand Gause, Plaintiff,
v.
Unknown Thude, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          EILEEN S. WILLETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This Order addresses a number of pending Motions (Docs. 35, 38, 43, 45, 51, 52, 55).

         I. DISCUSSION

         A. 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)

         In two 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 District Judge.

         B. 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)

         In his 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.” (Id.).

         Motions 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).

         The 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.

         C. Plaintiff's Motions to Compel (Docs. 45, 51, 52)

         On 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. 51)
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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.