Smith et al v. Leichtman et al

Filing 170

ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White denying 141 Motion for Writ (jswlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2010)

Smith et al v. Leichtman et al

Doc. 170

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHRISTINA SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LEVINE LEICHTMAN CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC., et al., Defendants. / ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION UNDER THE ALL WRITS ACT AND RULE 23(D) No. C 10-00010 JSW

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Now before the Court is the motion against third-party attorneys, Defendants and their counsel under the All Writs Act and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d). This matter is now fully briefed and ripe for consideration. The Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition without oral argument and is deemed submitted. See Civ. L.R. 7-19(b). Accordingly, the hearing set for November 5, 2010 is HEREBY VACATED. Having carefully reviewed the parties' papers, considered their arguments and the relevant authority, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby denies Plaintiffs' motion. In their reply brief, Plaintiffs clarify that they are no longer seeking to enjoin the malpractice action pending in state court. Instead, Plaintiffs' are seeking to enjoin the plaintiff in that action and her attorneys from filing any additional similar actions in any court other than the Northern District of California, bar such individuals from communicating with members of the class Plaintiffs seek to represent in the above captioned matter, and seek discovery from such individuals, as well as from Defendants in the above captioned matter and their counsel.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

The Court will not enjoin potential future malpractice actions where Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that such future actions are even likely to be filed. Moreover, such state law claims must be filed in state court, not federal court. The Court further declines to enjoin future communications in the absence of any evidence that the plaintiff in the pending malpractice action, her attorneys, Defendants in the above captioned matter, and/or their attorneys actually engaged in any wrongdoing. This Order is without prejudice to Plaintiffs moving for similar relief if they obtain such evidence. The remainder of Plaintiffs' motion seeks to obtain discovery from the plaintiff in the pending malpractice action, her attorneys, Defendants in the above captioned matter, and their attorneys. The Court declines to order discovery to be produced in the absence of formal discovery requests. This Order is without prejudice to Plaintiffs formally seeking discovery against the plaintiff in the pending malpractice action, her attorneys, Defendants in the above captioned matter, and/or their attorneys in either the pending malpractice action or the above captioned matter. If the parties dispute the scope of discovery, they should raise such issues in response to the specific discovery requests. If Plaintiffs require additional discovery beyond the limitations currently set, they should seek permission from the Court at such time. To the extent the parties are unable to resolve disputes regarding specific discovery requests, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-1, the Court HEREBY REFERS this matter to a randomly assigned magistrate judge for resolution of such discovery disputes and for resolution of all discovery matters. IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: October 28, 2010

JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc:

Susan Imbriani

2