MALENKO v. HANDRAHAN
PROCEDURAL ORDER - By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (mnw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
) Docket no. 2:11-cv-250-GZS
On April 25, 2012 at 2:00 P.M., the Court held a telephonic conference of counsel. The
purpose of the conference was to discuss Defendant’s oral request to appear at the May 11, 2012
hearing by way of videoconference. Attorney Michael Waxman appeared for Plaintiff. Attorney
Ardith Keef appeared for Defendant. Following the conference, the Court ordered that Plaintiff’s
counsel submit a status report regarding the related state court hearing that was scheduled for April
26, 2012. On April 27, 2012, Plaintiff’s counsel filed his status report, which the Court has now
The Court hereby ORDERS the parties take the following actions in preparation for the May
11, 2012 hearing on subject matter jurisdiction:
(1) Upon receipt, Plaintiff shall file with this Court a copy of Judge Moskowitz’s ruling. To
the extent that said ruling contains any personal identifiers, counsel is reminded to
properly redact the order prior to filing.
(2) The Court is satisfied that the ongoing nature of the state proceedings and the
uncertainty as to the status of those proceedings on May 11, 2012 creates compelling
circumstances that justify allowing the parties to plan for Defendant to appear in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a). In light of Plaintiff’s withdrawal
of any objection to Defendant appearing by videoconference, the Court will GRANT
Defendant’s request WITHOUT OBJECTION and ORDERS that Defendant make
arrangements for appropriate safeguards in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 43(a). Defendant is hereby notified that she is solely responsible for ensuring
that appropriate safeguards are in place and that all technical issues are resolved prior to
the start of the hearing. Unresolved technical issues will not serve as a basis for
continuing the hearing. Any failure to appear on time by way of contemporaneous video
transmission will be deemed a waiver of Defendant’s right to testify and appear at the
May 11, 2012 hearing.
(3) Defendant is hereby notified that her appearance at this upcoming hearing via video
transmission is allowed only because she will be represented in-person by her counsel,
Attorney Potter. After the May 11, 2012 hearing, the Court may grant Attorney Potter’s
Motion to Withdraw. In the absence of Defendant securing other counsel, she would
then assume pro se status. As a pro se litigant, Defendant would be required to appear
in-person for future court hearings and trial. Failure to appear in-person under these
circumstances would result in the entry of a default judgment in favor of Plaintiff.
(4) Defendant is also free to appear in-person at the May 11, 2012 hearing and any future
hearings in this case. In light of the issues put on the record by counsel regarding prior
state court proceedings, the Court reminds all parties that security is a serious matter
within all federal courthouses. This judge, with the able assistance of the United States
Marshals Service, requires all litigants and counsel to behave in a manner that is
respectful of the Court and of the fundamental right of due process. Any litigant or
member of the bar that fails to follow the Court’s orders or otherwise creates a security
concern within the courthouse is subject to removal as well as a finding of contempt of
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 27th day of April, 2012.
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?