Weeks v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Filing
203
ORDER STRIKING DECLARATION, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/23/2018. (Kusamura, W)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
TREVOR WEEKS,
10
Plaintiff
ORDER STRIKING DECLARATION
11
12
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1641 AWI JLT
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,
13
(Doc. No. 202)
Defendant
14
15
16
On March 22, 2018, the Court issued an order that inter alia gave the parties 21 days in
17
which to file dismissal papers, informed the parties that the Court would not be exercising
18
ancillary jurisdiction over the fee dispute among Plaintiff’s counsel, and stated that “no further
19
applications or motions or responses from any interested parties regarding the fee dispute” would
20
be accepted. See Doc. No. 201.
About one hour after the Court issued this order, Plaintiff’s former counsel Kay Parker
21
22
filed a declaration “in response to allegations and in response to order Doc. 201.” See Doc. No.
23
202. In the declaration, Parker states that she has never refused to settle with any attorney in this
24
case, no attorney has talked to her about settling the fee dispute, she urges other attorneys to
25
inform the court about any discussions concerning herself and settlement and any settlement offers
26
made to her, and she appears to clarify an aspect of the settlement agreement regarding attorneys’
27
fees (although it is unclear if she has seen the settlement agreement that was actually signed). See
28
id.
1
Parker’s responsive declaration is precisely the kind of filing that the Court expressly
2
informed the parties that it would not accept. The declaration is all about the fee dispute and the
3
poor relationship and communication between some or all of Weeks’s counsel. The declaration
4
reinforces the Court’s decision to not exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the fee dispute. The
5
declaration is especially inappropriate because it encourages other attorneys to communicate with
6
the Court about the fee dispute, which is directly contrary to the Court’s March 22, 2018 order.
7
Because the declaration was filed in violation of a court order, it will be stricken.
8
9
Further filings that violate the Court’s March 22 order will be grounds for sanctions. See
Local Rule 110.
10
11
12
13
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the March 22, 2018 Declaration of Kay
Parker (Doc. No. 202) is STRICKEN.
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 23, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?