Lew vs. Children International

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 6 Motion to Forestall Subterfuge; denying without prejudice 13 Motion re Veronica Liques Deposition; denying 18 Motion to Curtail; denying 19 Motion to Clean House; granting 20 Motion to Reduce Damage Claim. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen M. Humphreys on 9/21/2012.Mailed to pro se party Robert Lew by regular mail (vs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ROBERT LEW,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHILDREN INTERNATIONAL,
Defendant,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-1249-JTM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, pro se, filed a three-page complaint containing conclusory allegations that
defendant committed fraud. This matter is before the court on various “motions” by plaintiff
and the rulings are set forth below.

Plaintiff’s “Motion to Forestall Subterfuge” (Doc. 6)
Plaintiff alleges in a two-paragraph “motion” that defendant filed a motion to dismiss
“but deliberately [sent] nothing to the plaintiff so that the case is terminated before plaintiff
knows what has happened.” Plaintiff also argues that defendant’s attorneys should “be
brought up on charges by the court for their unethical conduct.” (Doc. 6). Neither defendant
nor defense counsel filed a formal response to plaintiff’s motion.
The certificate of service attached to defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 8) states that
defense counsel electronically filed the motion to dismiss “with the clerk of the court by

using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to [plaintiff].” This
assertion is incorrect—plaintiff proceeds pro se and is not registered to receive electronic
notification of documents filed in this case. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 6) is
GRANTED IN PART and defendant shall serve plaintiff with all future filings by mail at
plaintiff’s Salina, Kansas address.1 The court is not persuaded that defense counsel’s mistake
concerning electronic notice warrants charges of unethical conduct; therefore, that portion
of the motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s “Motion Re Veronica Liques Deposition” (Doc. 13)
Plaintiff’s “motion” reflects his desire to take the deposition of Veronica Liques. The
request for discovery is premature; therefore, plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 13) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed. R. Civ. Procedure 26(d)(1).

Plaintiff’s “Motion to Curtail” (Doc. 18)
Plaintiff asserts that his lawsuit “is merely a grade-B lawsuit, meriting at best 2 hours
of court time about 10 months from now” and moves the court to order defendant “to refrain
from making ceaseless daily attacks on plaintiff’s basic claims.” Notwithstanding plaintiff’s

1

After the motion to dismiss was filed, defense counsel was separately notified by
the clerk of the court that plaintiff was not registered to receive electronic notification and
that filings must be served on plaintiff by mail. Defendant filed a modified certificate of
service showing that the motion to dismiss was served by mail. (Doc. 10).
-2-

candor concerning the claims asserted in his lawsuit, plaintiff’s motion fails to set forth legal
justifications for his requested order. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 18) is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s “Motion to Clean House” (Doc. 19)
Plaintiff asks that the court “clear the air by making a single interim ruling on the
assorted motions.” The court will rule on defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion for
summary judgment in due course. Plaintiff’s “motion to clean house” (Doc. 19) is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reduce Damage Claim (Doc. 20)
Plaintiff originally requested damages of $100,000 and the “total shutdown of the
Children International organization, with seizure of all assets, to the sum of $5 trillion.”
(Doc. 1). Conceding he “was in the grip of excessive emotion” when he filed this lawsuit,
plaintiff now seeks to drop his request that defendant be “shutdown” and that all assets be
seized. Defendant does not oppose the reduction in damages but argues that the requested
relief is moot in light of defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss remains pending before the district judge; therefore,
the assertion that plaintiff’s motion is moot is not persuasive. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion
to reduce his damage claim (Doc. 20) shall be GRANTED. If the complaint survives
defendant’s motion to dismiss, the formal amendment of plaintiff’s complaint will be
addressed at a future date.

-3-

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 21st day of September 2012.
S/ Karen M. Humphreys
_______________________
KAREN M. HUMPHREYS
United States Magistrate Judge

-4-