Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Weeks v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 1:13-CV-1641 AWI JLT. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180326598 Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 23, 2018
Summary: ORDER STRIKING DECLARATION (Doc. No. 202) ANTHONY W. ISHII , Senior District Judge . On March 22, 2018, the Court issued an order that inter alia gave the parties 21 days in which to file dismissal papers, informed the parties that the Court would not be exercising ancillary jurisdiction over the fee dispute among Plaintiff's counsel, and stated that "no further applications or motions or responses from any interested parties regarding the fee dispute " would be accepted. See Doc. No.
More

ORDER STRIKING DECLARATION (Doc. No. 202)

On March 22, 2018, the Court issued an order that inter alia gave the parties 21 days in which to file dismissal papers, informed the parties that the Court would not be exercising ancillary jurisdiction over the fee dispute among Plaintiff's counsel, and stated that "no further applications or motions or responses from any interested parties regarding the fee dispute" would be accepted. See Doc. No. 201.

About one hour after the Court issued this order, Plaintiff's former counsel Kay Parker filed a declaration "in response to allegations and in response to order Doc. 201." See Doc. No. 202. In the declaration, Parker states that she has never refused to settle with any attorney in this case, no attorney has talked to her about settling the fee dispute, she urges other attorneys to inform the court about any discussions concerning herself and settlement and any settlement offers made to her, and she appears to clarify an aspect of the settlement agreement regarding attorneys' fees (although it is unclear if she has seen the settlement agreement that was actually signed). See id.

Parker's responsive declaration is precisely the kind of filing that the Court expressly informed the parties that it would not accept. The declaration is all about the fee dispute and the poor relationship and communication between some or all of Weeks's counsel. The declaration reinforces the Court's decision to not exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the fee dispute. The declaration is especially inappropriate because it encourages other attorneys to communicate with the Court about the fee dispute, which is directly contrary to the Court's March 22, 2018 order. Because the declaration was filed in violation of a court order, it will be stricken.

Further filings that violate the Court's March 22 order will be grounds for sanctions. See Local Rule 110.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the March 22, 2018 Declaration of Kay Parker (Doc. No. 202) is STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer