MALENKO v. HANDRAHAN

Filing 22

PROCEDURAL ORDER & REPORT OF CONFERENCE: Hearing set for 5/11/2012 at 1:00 p.m. The parties are required to provide the Court with copies of exhibits they intend to offer at the hearing by NOON on 5/10/2012. Defendant's Final Pretrial Memo shall be filed by NOON on 4/17/2012. This case is removed from the May trial list and will be placed on the 6/4/2012 trial list. By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
IGOR MALENKO,
Plaintiff,
v.
LORI HANDRAHAN,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Docket no. 2:11-cv-250-GZS
)
)
)
)

PROCEDURAL ORDER & REPORT OF CONFERENCE
On April 10, 2012 at 9:45 AM, the Court held a conference of counsel. Attorney Michael
Waxman appeared for Plaintiff. Attorney Judy Potter appeared for Defendant. Attorney Potter
specifically indicated that she has forwarded copies of her March 19, 2012 Motion to Withdraw to
Defendant Lori Handrahan. Attorney Potter also indicated that she repeatedly had attempted to
contact Defendant by mail and e-mail prior to the conference. In short, Defendant has received
notice of Attorney Potter’s pending motion to withdraw and today’s conference. Attorney Potter
further indicated she has received no response of any kind from Defendant. As a result, Defendant
has taken no position on the pending motion to withdraw.
As a result of the conference, the Court hereby ORDERS the following:
(1) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), an evidentiary hearing will be held
on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Based on the current record, it is not clear
that Defendant Lori Handrahan was, in fact, domiciled in the District of Columbia at the
time this action was filed. See Rodriguez v. Señor Frog’s De La Isla, Inc., 642 F.3d 28,
32-34 (1st Cir. 2011); Bank One, Texas, N.A. v. Montle, 964 F.2d 48, 49-55 (1st Cir.
1992). The hearing on subject matter jurisdiction is set for May 11, 2012 at 1:00 PM.
The Court has reserved two hours for this hearing. The parties are required to provide
the Court with copies of any exhibits they intend to offer at the hearing no later than
noon on May 10, 2012. Both Plaintiff and Defendant shall appear in-person for this
hearing.

(2) The Court RESERVES RULING on Attorney Potter’s Motion to Withdraw (Docket #
11). If the Court determines that there is subject matter jurisdiction over this action after
the May 11th hearing, it will then rule upon the Motion to Withdraw. Until such a ruling
is issued, Attorney Potter remains counsel of record for Defendant in accordance with
Maine Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(c).
(3) The Court has CANCELLED the Final Pretrial Conference set for April 11, 2012.
However, Attorney Potter is hereby ORDERED to file a final pretrial memorandum on
behalf of Defendant on or before April 17, 2012 at noon. The parties are hereby
NOTIFIED that if the Court determines that it has subject matter jurisdiction, this matter
will be set for a final pretrial conference before this judge as soon as practicable. This
case will be removed from the May Trial List but will be tentatively placed on the June
Trial List. Therefore, the parties shall be prepared to select a jury in this case on June 4,
2012. To the extent any party or counsel has good cause to seek protection from specific
trial dates in June, a motion for protection shall be filed no later than May 10, 2012.
(4) Attorney Potter shall appear at the next hearing in this matter prepared to place on the
record all of her attempts to contact Defendant and to notify Defendant of this Order and
the May 11, 2012 hearing. Defendant has right to be represented at the hearing by
qualified counsel of her own choosing. However, in the absence of another qualified
attorney filing a substitute appearance, Attorney Potter shall appear at the May 11th
hearing for Defendant. Attorney Potter is specifically directed to notify Defendant that
upon a finding of subject matter jurisdiction, this matter will proceed to trial in June
2012. As a result, Defendant should be searching out additional counsel who would be
available to represent her at trial in anticipation that Attorney Potter may be allowed to
withdraw. Defendant is hereby further notified that failure to appear at any hearing or
trial will result in the forfeiture of her right to be heard on the issues then before the
Court. Additionally, failure to comply with any order of this Court may result in
sanctions, including the entry of default.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 10th day of April, 2012.
2