Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC v. Anderson

Filing 120

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER finding as moot 119 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 06/27/2014. (jf2, Deputy Clerk)

f'I~Eu

", ..•IIS1 f\lr r Cullin
,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cqQ15.t:-:lr1 I~F
'~H\lr"L~HtJ
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND'i I r. " - '

10I~ JUt! 2 1 P ]: 38

*
FUNDAMENTAL

ADMIN. SERVS., LLC,

*

Plaintiff
v.

.'lY

*
*

KRIST! ANDERSON,

*

*

Defendant

*

*

CIVIL NO .. JKB-13-1708

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM

*

*

*

*

*

*

AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Kristi Anderson's Motion to Modify or Vacate
Court's June 18,2014, Order. (Motion, ECF No, 119.) Although the motion is now moot based
on the Court's

granting the requested relief (Order, June 25, 2014, ECF No. 118), it is

worthwhile to respond to certain statements made in the pending motion.
Anderson states she is appearing pro se with respect to certain matters and that she is
represented by Stacey A. Moffet, Eric M. Rigatuso, and Eccleston & WolL P.C, (collectively,
"Eccleston"),

as to certain other matters.

(Motion I.) Anderson and Eccleston point out that

particular filings in this case were made by Anderson's former counsel (Steven Leitess, who has
withdrawn his appearance) and others were made by Eccleston and implicitly suggest that the
Court was somehow put on notice of their desired division of duties by those filings. As further
support for this suggestion, Anderson and Eccleston point to Eccleston's notice of appearance on
behalf of "Defendant,
regarded as Anderson's
(Motion 3-4.)

Kristi Anderson," apparently to show Eccleston did not intend to be
counsel for her subsequent counterclaim and third-party complaint.

The undersigned

has a significant case load, and many of the cases include

multiple representations by various counsel: it is common for difTerent lawyers to file documents
in the same case for the same party. As long as something is filed on behalf of a party, the Court
pays no attention to which attorney has made a particular liIing. Nor does the Court look behind
those filings and make a judgment as to the scope of any individual attomey"s representation.

A

notice of appearance is assumed to embrace all succeeding matters in the case unless the Court is
explicitly informed otherwise.
Court not unreasonably
appearance

Eccleston's notice of appearance contained no limitation.

believed its notice of appearance

constituted

rather than the atypical scenario presented here.

The

a typical notice of

Anderson's

and Eccleston's

expectation that the Court would parse the contents of the docket to determine their respective
roles was not reasonable.
As for Anderson' s intention to proceed pro se regarding certain matters. the Court will
permit that with the understanding that she will be treated as other pro se litigants before the
Court. Any orders filed will not be directed specifically to Anderson or Eccleston because how
they want to divide matters between them is not the Court's concern. Anderson and the lawyers
from the Eccleston tim1 are now all permitted to act on Anderson's behalf in this matter. Based
on the Court's earlier rulings. it is now emphasized that Leitess and Friedberg Pc. where
Anderson is now otherwise employed. will have no contact with this case.
Accordingly,

it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Modify or Vacate Court's

June 18, 2014. Order (ECF No. 119) is MOOT.

The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order to

PlaintifTat the address included by her on the motion.

2

DATED this ~

1-day of June, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

UeL--

1~-O~

James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

3