Alvarado et al v. Fedex Corporation

Filing 1354

ORDER DENYING MR. McCOY'S MOTION TO REVOKE THE ORDERS OF REFERENCE TO SPECIAL MASTER EDWARD SWANSON, MOTION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO PLAINTIFFS' PETITIONS FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OBJECTION TO DOCKET NO. 1296 (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mr. McCoy has filed a "Motion to Revoke the Orders of Reference to Special Master Edward Swanson, Motion to Stay All Proceedings Related to the Plaintiffs' Petitions for Attorney's Fees, [and] Objection to the Special Master's Order Denying McCoy Leave to Specially Appear." (Docket No. 1299). The motion is scheduled for a hearing on March 20, 2007. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. Mr. McCoy seeks an order revoking the Court's previous orders of referral to the Special Master, and staying all proceedings related to the Alvarado and Boswell fee petitions pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of the appeals in those cases, as well as the Court's resolution of Alvarado v. McCoy et al., C 09-485 SI. Mr. McCoy also objects to the Special Master's denial of his motion to specially appear. The Court DENIES Mr. McCoy's motions for several reasons. First, by order filed March 19, 2009, the Court, inter alia, struck Mr. McCoy's fee petitions in Alvarado and Boswell, and as a result of that order, most substantive proceedings pending before the Special Master involving Mr. McCoy have been terminated. Second, the Court finds Mr. McCoy's assertion that the Special Master has v. FEDEX CORPORATION, dba FEDEX EXPRESS, Defendant. / EDWARD ALVARADO, et al., Plaintiffs, No. C 04-0098 SI; No. C 04-0099 ORDER DENYING MR. McCOY'S MOTION TO REVOKE THE ORDERS OF REFERENCE TO SPECIAL MASTER EDWARD SWANSON, MOTION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO PLAINTIFFS' PETITIONS FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OBJECTION TO DOCKET NO. 1296 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 engaged in a "witch hunt" and "inappropriate conduct" in the matters before him to be utterly baseless. For all of the reasons set forth in the Court's March 19, 2009 sanctions order, as well as the Court's Order Denying Mr. McCoy's Motion to Disqualify the Special Master (Docket No. 988), the Court finds that the Special Master has comported himself with the highest professionalism and ethical standards Mr. McCoy simply does not like the Special Master's rulings. With regard to Mr. McCoy's request to specially appear, Mr. McCoy makes much of the fact that this Court initially granted the motion, and then vacated the order and referred it to the Special Master. However, as stated in the Court's order vacating the initial order (Docket No. 1289), at the time the Court granted Mr. McCoy's order (by signing his proposed order), the Court was not aware that defendant opposed the motion. In addition, because the motion to specially appear related to the fee petitions then pending before the Special Master, it was appropriate to have the Special Master decide that motion in the first instance. The Court has now reviewed the propriety of Mr. McCoy's request to specially appear on behalf of plaintiffs Alvarado and Boswell in the context of all the litigation surrounding the fee petitions, and the Court concludes that the Special Master's order denying Mr. McCoy's request is correct. The Court affirms the Special Master's order and DENIES Mr. McCoy's objection. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 19, 2009 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 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?