Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

SLADEK v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., 13-cv-03094-PAB-MEH. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Colorado Number: infdco20150909a25 Visitors: 18
Filed: Sep. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 08, 2015
Summary: ORDER PHILIP A. BRIMMER , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on its Order to Show Cause [Docket No. 161] dated August 25, 2015. The Court's order addressed plaintiffs Diana and Dennis Sladek's multiple attempts to remove Case No. 11-cv-00375 (the "state court action") from the District Court for the County of El Paso, Colorado to federal district court. The Court found that plaintiffs' multiple attempts at removing the state court action were frivolous and needlessly caused th
More

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on its Order to Show Cause [Docket No. 161] dated August 25, 2015. The Court's order addressed plaintiffs Diana and Dennis Sladek's multiple attempts to remove Case No. 11-cv-00375 (the "state court action") from the District Court for the County of El Paso, Colorado to federal district court. The Court found that plaintiffs' multiple attempts at removing the state court action were frivolous and needlessly caused the Court and defendant Bank of America to expend resources and that the timing of plaintiffs' notices of removal suggested that plaintiffs were abusing the removal process to delay enforcement of a writ of restitution issued in the state court action ordering plaintiffs to vacate a property that they were occupying illegally. See Docket No. 161 at 6. Accordingly, the Court ordered plaintiffs to show cause why they should not be prohibited from filing any further notices of removal of any state court action unless such notices are filed by an attorney who represents them, or unless they first seek leave of the Court and the Court grants such leave. Id. at 7.

On September 3, 2015, plaintiffs responded to the Court's Order to Show Cause. See Docket No. 165. Plaintiffs do not object to the imposition of the filing restriction noted in the order to show cause. Instead, in order to address the Court's concerns, plaintiffs state that Dennis Sladek has been a practicing attorney in state and federal courts in Colorado since 1988 and that he recently completed a suspension of his license to practice law. Docket No. 165 at 1.1 Plaintiffs also state that Diana Sladek "has been a trial consultant for over 20 years." Id. at 2.

Plaintiffs' legal experience does not allay the Court's concerns. Rather, plaintiffs' financial and personal interests may have predominated over the exercise of sound legal judgment. In any event, plaintiffs indicate that they "will abide by any resolution that this Court feels is necessary." Docket No. 165 at 2. Accordingly, plaintiffs not having shown cause, it is

ORDERED that plaintiffs Diana Sladek and Dennis Sladek are prohibited from filing any notice of removal of any state court action to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado unless such notice is filed by an attorney, other than Mr. Sladek, who represents them or unless they first seek leave from the Court and the Court grants such leave. Failure to comply with this Order may result in further sanctions.

FootNotes


1. As of the date of this order, Mr. Sladek's law license remains suspended in the State of Colorado.
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