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