Katz et al
ORDER striking 97 Notice of Piccone Attorney Appearance. If Piccone wishes to act as counsel of record in this matter, hemust seek admission pro hac vice again. Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline 12/1/2011. Follow up on Objection on 1/3/2012. Follow up on Reply on 1/10/2012. Follow up on Surreply 1/17/2012. So Ordered by Judge Joseph N. Laplante.(dae)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Elena Katz et al.
Civil No. 10-cv-410-JL
Brian McVeigh et al.
On August 22, 2011, this court convened an evidentiary
hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion seeking their appointment as
next friends for their incapacitated adult daughter, Eleonora
Grodman, and leave to amend their complaint to add claims on her
behalf (document no. 67).
At the hearing, however, the
plaintiffs assented to the denial of that motion as moot, after
they agreed with the defendants on a particular third person who
would be suitable to serve as Eleonora’s next friend instead, and
that the next friend, when appointed, would decide whether and
how to introduce any claims Eleonora had into this case.
That person declined to seek appointment to that role, so
the court asked the parties to agree on another suitable
candidate--then asked them to do so a third time when the second
candidate also declined to seek appointment.
See Orders of Sept.
9, 2011 (docket no. 87), Sept. 23, 2011 (docket no. 92).
parties then agreed on a third candidate, but he declined to seek
appointment as well.
The parties are free to seek other mutually
agreeable candidates, or to make other proposals, but litigation
of the plaintiffs’ claims shall proceed in the meantime.
Toward that end, on October 26, 2011, this court conducted a
Counsel for all defendants appeared in
person, and counsel for the plaintiffs, Francis J. McDonough,
Jr., appeared telephonically during an off-the-record portion of
At the conference, the court announced a
schedule for the submission and briefing of motions to dismiss or
for judgment on the pleadings, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), (c).
Several of the defendants had filed such motions, but they were
denied without prejudice when the plaintiffs were granted leave
to file their first amended complaint.
2011 (document no. 46).
See Order of Apr. 14,
That schedule is as follows:
• the defendants shall file their motions to dismiss or for
judgment on the pleadings, as the case may be, each together
with a supporting memorandum not to exceed 25 pages, by
December 1, 2011;
• the plaintiffs shall file a single memorandum in objection
to any and all such motions, not to exceed 50 pages, by
January 3, 2012;
• the defendants may, but are not required to, file reply
memoranda to the plaintiffs’ objection, each not to exceed
15 pages, and limited to the issues raised in the objection,
by January 10, 2012; and
• the plaintiffs may, but are not required to, file a single
sur-reply memorandum, not to exceed 15 pages and limited to
the issues raised in the replies, by January 17, 2012.
The defendants shall make every reasonable effort to avoid the
repetition of arguments by consolidating them into a single
memorandum where possible.
Also present during the entirety of the proceedings on
October 26 was another attorney, Louis A. Piccone, who had
previously been admitted to represent the plaintiffs in this
matter pro hac vice, see Order of Nov. 30, 2010, but had then
sought and been granted leave to withdraw due to the
administrative suspension of his license to practice law in
Pennsylvania, the sole jurisdiction in which he is admitted.
Order of Sept. 19, 2011 (granting document no. 88).
The day before the conference, Piccone filed a “Notice of
Appearance,” stating that the administrative suspension had been
lifted and his license reinstated (document no. 97).
end of the day, certain of the defendants had filed an
“objection” to the notice, arguing that, having withdrawn,
Piccone could not simply re-appear, but needed to seek pro hac
vice status again, and that this relief would not be appropriate
in light of, inter alia, one federal district court’s denial of
Piccone’s pro hac vice admission there, and another’s finding him
in contempt in an unrelated case.
Based on the objection (which
was joined in, at the hearing, by all other defendants) this
court STRIKES Piccone’s notice of appearance (document no. 97).
If Piccone wishes to act as counsel of record in this matter, he
must seek admission pro hac vice again.
See L.R. 83.2(a).
Joseph N. Laplante
United States District Judge
October 28, 2011
Francis J. McDonough, Jr., Esq.
Louis A. Piccone, Esq.
Rebecca L. Woodard, Esq.
Nancy J. Smith, Esq.
Brian J.S. Cullen, Esq.
Donald L. Smith, Esq.
Paul B. Kleinman, Esq.
Charles P. Bauer, Esq.
Corey M. Belobrow, Esq.
W. Daniel Deane, Esq.
Raquel D. Ruano, Esq.
Raquel J. Webster, Esq.
Lisa M. Lee, Esq.
Adam B. Pignatelli, Esq.
Michael A. Pignatelli, Esq.