Harkey v. US Bank et al

Filing 196

ORDER Granting 64 , 65 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 137 , and 138 Verified Petitions for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Michael J. Gleason and Attorney James E. Heffner for Earl Beutler and approving Designation of Loca l Counsel for Attorney Marni Rubin Watkins. Denying 83 Motion to File Surreply and accompanying request for evidentiary hearing. Granting in part and Denying in part 117 and 123 Motions to Strike 76 Reply and 78 Declaration. Within 5 days defendants Black Knight Financial Services, LLC and Fidelity National Financial Inc. shall refile their Reply in Support of the 76 Verified Petitions to Practice Pro Hac Vice and Defendants shall also refile the Declaration of James E. Heffner in Support of Defendants Reply. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 1/21/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

MICHAEL HARKEY,

8

Plaintiff,
ORDER

9
10

Case No. 2:14-cv-00177-RFB-GWF

v.
Verified Petitions to Practice Pro Hac Vice
(ECF Nos. 64, 65, 127, 128, 129, 130, 137,
138)

U.S. BANK, N.A., et al.,

11

Defendants.

12

Motion for Leave to File Surreply (ECF No.
83)

13

Motions to Strike (ECF Nos. 117, 123)

14
15

I.

INTRODUCTION

16

This matter is before the Court on a series of motions that appear to relate to a dispute

17

over a stipulation for extension of time that was filed and withdrawn in this case in July 2014.

18

See ECF Nos. 56, 60. On August 1, 2014, counsel for Defendants Black Knight Financial

19

Services, LLC (“BKFS”) and Fidelity National Financial Inc. (“FNF”) (collectively,

20

“Petitioners”) filed Verified Petitions for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice in this case. See

21

Verified Petitions, ECF Nos. 64, 65. Plaintiff filed a response to both petitions, asking this Court

22

to inquire as to whether Petitioners “are prepared to comply with the Rules of this Court and the

23

Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct in these proceedings.” Resp. Verified Petitions at 5, ECF

24

No. 70. Plaintiff alleges that Petitioners filed a stipulation for extension of time and affixed

25

Plaintiff’s counsel’s electronic signature to it without Plaintiff’s counsel’s consent. Petitioners

26

dispute this claim and argue that Plaintiff’s counsel gave his express consent and only attempted

27

to claim that no such consent was given after the stipulation was filed.

28

///

1

This dispute has led to a cascade of filings as to whether Petitioners should be permitted

2

to appear in this case and whether their filings should be stricken. In addition to opposing the

3

eight pro hac vice petitions filed by Petitioners, Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to File Surreply

4

(ECF No. 83) and a Motion to Strike (ECF No. 117, as amended by ECF No. 123) which seeks

5

to strike all filings made by Defendants BKFS and FNF and requests an order to show cause why

6

Petitioners should not be held in contempt, sanctioned and disciplined for violations of the Local

7

Rules of this Court and of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct.

8
II.

9

DISCUSSION

10

The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions relating to the incident which Plaintiff

11

claims raises concerns as to Petitioners’ ability to comply with the rules of this Court and with

12

the rules of professional conduct. The Court finds that it need not make a factual determination

13

as to whether Plaintiff’s counsel consented to the stipulation because Petitioners quickly rectified

14

the situation. The Court is satisfied that Petitioners are willing and able to uphold their obligation

15

to comply with Court rules and standards of professional conduct. These conclusions inform the

16

Court’s rulings on the motions as set forth below.

17

A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply

18

The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to file a surreply. Nothing in the Local Rules

19

authorizes surreplies. See LR 7-2(a)–(c). Surreplies are highly disfavored and courts in this

20

district routinely interpret Local Rule 7-2 to allow filing of surreplies only by leave of court and

21

only to address new matters raised in a reply to which a party would otherwise be unable to

22

respond. See, e.g., FNBN-RESCON I LLC v. Ritter, 2014 WL 979930 at *6 (D. Nev. Mar. 12,

23

2014); Lasko v. Am. Bd. of Surgery, 2014 WL 300930 at *1 (D. Nev. Jan. 27, 2014).

24

Here, Plaintiff seeks to file a surreply to respond to material contained within Petitioner’s

25

reply brief that is directed at past ethical violations and sanctions incurred by counsel for

26

Plaintiff and his colleague. Petitioners’ filings related to these violations and sanctions are

27

irrelevant to the issue of whether Petitioners should be permitted to practice pro hac vice in this

28

///

-2-

1

case. Thus, the Court declines to consider any materials pertaining to the past conduct of counsel

2

for Plaintiff submitted by either party and will not permit a surreply directed at that past conduct.

3

Plaintiff’s motion also requests an evidentiary hearing to prove that Petitioners

4

misrepresented that Wendy Alison Nora, whom counsel for plaintiff states is working as a

5

“research assistant, investigator and paralegal in the instant case,” was “vitriolic” during

6

discussions with Petitioners and that she is acting as lead counsel in this case. Mot. Surreply at 4-

7

5, ECF No. 83. District courts have discretion over whether to hold an evidentiary hearing, but

8

they “should not do so if the certification, the pleadings, the affidavits, and any supporting

9

documentary evidence do not reveal an issue of material fact.” Kashin v. Kent, 457 F.3d 1033,

10

1043 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

11

Plaintiff’s request for an evidentiary hearing is denied. The Court does not deem the

12

issues of whether Ms. Nora was in fact acting “vitriolic” or whether she is in fact acting as lead

13

counsel to be material. These facts have no bearing on whether Petitioners should be admitted to

14

practice in this case. As stated above, the Court has found that Petitioners have acted

15

satisfactorily by quickly remedying any defects that may have existed in the stipulation for

16

extension of time that they filed. An evidentiary hearing on issues tangential to this case would

17

be unnecessary.

18

B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike

19

Plaintiff’s motion to strike, which was amended to correct typographical errors, asks that

20

filings made by BKFS and FNF be stricken. Plaintiff states that Petitioners have been practicing

21

law in this case by soliciting clients for representation and drafting documents that are filed by

22

BKFS and FNF’s local counsel, and that these “violations” justify striking filings made by these

23

defendants. Plaintiff also asks for an order to show cause why Petitioners should not be

24

sanctioned and held in contempt.

25

“The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,

26

immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Further, district courts have

27

inherent power to control their own dockets, including the power “to determine what appears in

28

the court’s records” and to strike items from the docket to address conduct that is improper but

-3-

1

does not warrant dismissal. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404-05 (9th

2

Cir. 2010).

3

Plantiff’s motion to strike is granted only with respect to BKFS and FNF’s reply brief

4

and the supporting declaration of James E. Heffner. ECF Nos. 76, 78. Significant portions of

5

these filings seek to undermine Plaintiff’s counsel’s credibility by introducing evidence of their

6

past ethical violations and misconduct. See Reply at 1:25-28, 2:1-15, ECF No. 76; Decl. of

7

James E. Heffner Ex. C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, ECF No. 78. These portions of BKFS and

8

FNF’s filings have no bearing on whether Petitioners are qualified to practice pro hac vice or on

9

the validity of Plaintiff’s legal claims, and their only purpose in this action is to cast Plaintiff’s

10

counsel in a negative light. Accordingly, the Court exercises its inherent power to strike these

11

items from the docket, but orders that they be refiled without the portions directed toward

12

Plaintiff’s counsel’s past conduct. Petitioners are admonished not to present such evidence in any

13

future filing in this case.

14

The remainder of Plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied. Nothing in the Local Rules

15

precludes attorneys whose pro hac vice petitions are pending from representing clients and

16

participating in the drafting of pleadings, and Plaintiff has provided no legal authority supporting

17

such a claim. The Court also denies Plaintiff’s request for an order to show cause. Plaintiff has

18

not demonstrated that Petitioners have violated any order of this Court.

19

C. Verified Petitions for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice

20

The Court has reviewed the eight pro hac vice petitions submitted by Petitioners Michael

21

J. Gleason and James E. Heffner (ECF Nos. 64, 65, 127, 128, 129, 130, 137, 138). Petitioners

22

have complied with the Local Rules of Civil Practice for the District of Nevada, and the Court

23

grants their Verified Petitions.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27
28

-4-

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons stated above,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Verified Petitions for Permission to Practice Pro

4

Hac Vice of Michael J. Gleason and James E. Heffner (ECF Nos. 64, 65, 127, 128, 129, 130,

5

137, 138) are GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to File Surreply and

6
7

accompanying request for evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 83) is DENIED.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 117) and

9

Amended Motion to Strike (ECF No. 123) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the

10

accompanying request for an order to show cause is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to strike

11

Defendants’ Reply in Support of the Verified Petitions to Practice Pro Hac Vice of Michael J.

12

Gleason and James E. Heffner (ECF No. 76) and the Declaration of James E. Heffner in Support

13

of Defendants’ Reply (ECF No. 78).

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within five (5) days of the date this Order is entered,

15

Defendants Black Knight Financial Services, LLC and Fidelity National Financial Inc. shall

16

refile their Reply in Support of the Verified Petitions to Practice Pro Hac Vice (ECF No. 76),

17

removing the allegations currently contained in lines 25-28 of page 1 and lines 1-15 of page 2.

18

Defendants shall also refile the Declaration of James E. Heffner in Support of Defendants’ Reply

19

(ECF No. 78), removing the documents currently attached as Exhibits C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K,

20

and L.

21
22

DATED this 21st day of January, 2015.

23
___________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

-5-