Womack v. GEO Group Incorporated et al

Filing 87

ORDER that Plaintiff's 73 Motion Not to Allow Change of Attorney for Defendant GEO is DENIED. Defendant's 74 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's 73 Motion is DENIED as moot. ORDERED that counsel and any unrepresented party must comply with the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, as amended on December 1, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 11/18/2013.(LFIG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

John Doneld Womack,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

GEO Group Incorporated,

13

Defendant.

14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-12-1524-PHX-SRB (LOA)
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion Not to Allow Change of Attorney

16

for Defendant GEO” and Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s “Motion Not to Allow

17

Change of Attorney for Defendant GEO.” (Docs. 73, 74) Plaintiff has filed a Response to

18

Defendant’s Motion to Strike. (Doc. 76)

19

Plaintiff requests in his motion that Defendant’s previous attorney of record, Scott A.

20

Alles, not be permitted to withdraw from further representation because he has not sought the

21

Court’s or Plaintiff’s Consent. Plaintiff further contends there are ongoing discovery disputes

22

involving attorney Scott A. Alles.

23

Civil Rule of Practice for the District Court of Arizona (“Local Rule” or “LRCiv”)

24

83.3(b)(4) permits a private law firm that has appeared as counsel of record to substitute an

25

attorney who is a member of that firm by simply filing a notice with the Court. The notice must

26

provide the names of the attorneys who are the subjects of the substitution along with the

27

current address and e-mail address of the attorney substituting. LRCiv 83.3(b)(4).

28

Here, Defendant filed a Notice of Change of Attorney Within Firm on September 18,

1

2013. (Doc. 69) The Notice indicates that Attorney Pari K. Scroggin is replacing Attorney

2

Scott A. Alles as counsel for Defendant in this case. Both attorneys are with the Scottsdale law

3

firm of Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester, LLP. The Notice further provides Attorney

4

Scroggin’s current mailing and e-mail addresses.

5

Moreover, as a general rule, “doctrine of standing prohibits a litigant from raising

6

another’s legal rights.” FMC Technologies, Inc. v. Edwards, 420 F.Supp.2d 1153, 1156 (W.D.

7

Wash. 2006) (citing, inter alia, Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750–51 (1984)). “[O]nly a

8

current or former client of an attorney has standing to complain of that attorney’s representation

9

of interests adverse to that current or former client.” Id. (quoting Colyer v. Smith, 50 F.Supp.2d

10

966, 969 (C.D.Cal. 1999)). Because there is no evidence that Attorney Pari K. Scroggin has

11

previously represented Plaintiff, Plaintiff lacks standing to object to Defendant’s substitution

12

of counsel.

13
14
15
16

The Court finds the Notice complies with LRCiv 83.3(b)(4). As a result, the substitution
is allowed.1 Plaintiff’s motion to prohibit the substitution will be denied.
Regarding the motion to strike, because the Court is denying Plaintiff’s motion, the
motion to strike is moot and will be denied as such.

17

Accordingly,

18

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion Not to Allow Change of Attorney for

19
20
21

Defendant GEO,” doc. 73, is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s “Motion
Not to Allow Change of Attorney for Defendant GEO,” doc. 74, is DENIED as moot.

22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any unrepresented party must comply

23

with the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (“Local

24

Rules”), as amended on December 1, 2012. The District’s Local Rules may be found on the

25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that Defendant’s Notice of Change of Attorney Within Firm was not
properly filed in text-searchable format per LRCiv 7.1(c), 5.5(b), and definition of “.pdf,” in
the District Court’s ECF Manual, at I(A), p. 4. Future filings by Defendant that does not comply
with the Local Rules and the District Court’s ECF Manual may be stricken and progressive
sanctions imposed to obtain compliance.
-2-

1

District Court’s internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/. All other rules may be found at

2

www.uscourts.gov/rules/. The fact that a party is acting pro se does not discharge a party’s

3

duties to “abide by the rules of the court in which he litigates.” Carter v. Commissioner of

4

Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986).

5

DATED this 18th day of November, 2013.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-