Wu et al v. Prudential Financial, Inc. et al
Filing
127
MEMORANDUM Order: Plaintiffs motion to consolidate Case No. 14 C 5392 and Case No. 15 C 2238 125 is denied. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 8/18/2015:Mailed notice(clw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL H. WU and CHRISTINE T. WU,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case Nos. 14 C 5392 and 15 C 2238
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Coplaintiffs Michael and Christine Wu (collectively "Wus") have just filed what they
label a "Motion To Consolidate" their two previously dismissed lawsuits, Case Nos. 14 C 5392
and 15 C 2238. But although the wealthy Wus have recently done what they should have done
in the first instance -- retaining a lawyer to represent them rather than trying to go it alone -- this
most recent filing was again prepared and submitted by them pro se, so that they have again
caused matters to be posed in a confused state procedurally (and hence substantively as well).
Under established rules and procedures, a party represented by counsel cannot proceed
pro se at the same time (nothing in the current motion provides any indication that Wus' counsel
played any part in its preparation and submission, and Wus' just-delivered notice of the
August 20 presentment of the motion states expressly that they are acting pro se). In this
instance their pro se handling (or mishandling) of their original 2014 litigation resulted in their
allowing the nonextendable time limit on a Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 59(e) motion that could bear
on the dismissal of that action to elapse without any action on their part -- so they then tendered
their 2015 Complaint instead. Whatever else can be said about the mess that the Wus' handling
has created, it is a mistake to think of their two lawsuits as part of an integrated whole, although
this Court's most recent July 29, 2015 memorandum opinion and order in the two cases (plus the
earlier opinions attached to that opinion) has sought to provide a comparative shortcut through
the maze generated by the Wus' self-prepared efforts before this.
For the present Wus' Motion To Consolidate will be denied on the earlier-stated
procedural ground that they cannot properly revert to self-representation with no hint that their
retained counsel is no longer acting in that capacity.. If Wus' counsel were hereafter to elect to
file a similar motion with appropriate explanatory support (which should reflect counsel's
understanding of the different postures of the two lawsuits in light of their prior histories), this
Court would be in a position to rule on such a motion on an informed basis.
__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: August 18, 2015
-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?