Lorraine v. Wallin et al
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Status Conference held on 1/10/2017 before Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb. Crtrm Administrator: Katie Lynn Ogden; Pla Counsel: Constance Lorraine (Pro Se, Telephonically); Def Counsel: Michael Lehners (Pre sent obo: Norman L. Wallin); Kevin Sheppard (Pro Se, Telephonically); Aaron Waite (Telephonically obo: Santander Consumer USA, Inc.); Recorder: FTR; Recording start and end times: 10:05:41 a.m. - 10:45:25 a.m.; Courtroom: 2. The court addresses several pending motions. Defendant Wallin's 10 Motion for Order to Show Cause is DENIED. Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Leave to Amend Claim and for Joinder of Additional Defendant is DENIED wi thout prejudice. Plaintiff's 32 Motion for Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (b) Federal Question is DENIED. Plaintiff's 38 Motion to Stop Defendant from Attempts to Repossess Plaintiff's 2015 Fiat is DENIED. Defendant Santander's 40 Motion to Remand is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
NORMAN L. WALLIN, et al.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00409-MMD-WGC
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
January 10, 2017
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Katie Lynn Ogden
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF: Constance Lorraine (Telephonically)
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:
Michael Lehners (Present obo: Norman L. Wallin);
Kevin Sheppard (Pro Se, Telephonically); Aaron Waite (Telephonically obo: Santander
Consumer USA, Inc.)
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS: Status Conference
10:05 a.m. Court convenes.
Today’s conference is scheduled to address several motions pending before the court.
The court first addresses defendant Wallin’s Motion for Order to Show Cause
(ECF No. 10). After hearing from counsel and Ms. Lorraine, the court does not find it can grant
any relief in favor of Mr. Wallin concerning his motion for order to show cause because the
document that prohibits ghost-lawyering applies to members of the bar–not pro se parties.
Therefore, defendant Wallin’s motion (ECF No. 10) is DENIED.
The court next addresses Plaintiff’s “Motion to Stop Defendant from Attempts to
Repossess Plaintiff’s 2015 Fiat” (ECF No. 38). Ms. Lorraine confirms that the 2015 Fiat
(“vehicle) is the vehicle she claims to have been coerced into buying and is the subject of this
lawsuit. However, Ms. Lorraine states for the record that she does not intend to return the
vehicle back to the dealership. In addition, Ms. Lorraine represents she does not wish to have the
Minutes of Proceedings
January 10, 2017
court order the sales transaction of the vehicle void, although the court notes that is one of the
many prayers for relief Ms. Lorraine lists in her complaint (ECF No. 4, pg. 15, ¶ 6).
Mr. Waite on behalf of defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc. (“Santander”) reports
to the court that an order has been entered in the Third District Court, Lyon County, State of
Nevada, Case No. 16-CV-0670 (“State Court Case”) enjoining the Defendants from repossessing
the vehicle. Mr. Waite explains his client has placed a hold on any action to repossess the court
at this time because of the order entered in the State Court Case.
After hearing from Mr. Waite and Ms. Lorraine, the court does not find an injunction or
retraining order is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. Additionally, the court does not find that
it is within the subject matter of this lawsuit where Plaintiff attempts to declare the sale
transaction of the vehicle void to now attempt to enjoin the repossession of the vehicle.
Furthermore, in view of Mr. Waite’s representations, Santander will not seek repossession of the
vehicle until the State Court Case order restricting the Defendants from repossessing the vehicle
is again addressed by the State Court. Therefore, in view of the court’s findings, Plaintiff’s
motion (ECF No. 38) is DENIED.
The court next addresses Plaintiff’s “Motion for Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C.
¶ 1441(b) Federal Question” (ECF No. 32). Ms. Lorraine indicates that the State Court judge
suggested Plaintiff remove the State Court Case to the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada. The court explains to Ms. Lorraine that when removing a State case to
Federal jurisdiction, the notice of removal shall be filed as a new action and not submitted as a
motion or filing within a case already established in federal court. Therefore, in light of
Ms. Lorraine submitting her motion to remove in the instant case, the motion (ECF No. 32) is
DENIED as improperly filed and shall be stricken from the record. The court advises
Ms. Lorraine she is not precluded from attempting to remove the State Court Case to the Federal
jurisdiction, but in order to do so she must properly submit the notice of removal in a new action.
In view of the court’s order to deny Plaintiff’s motion to remove, defendant Santander’s
Motion to Remand (ECF No. 40) is DENIED as moot.
The court next addresses Plaintiff’ “Motion for Leave to Amend Claim and for Joinder of
Additional Defendant” (ECF No. 13), which fails to include a copy of the proposed amended
complaint. Ms. Lorraine is advised that, pursuant to LR 15-1, she must attach the proposed
amended pleading to a motion seeking leave of the court to file an amended pleading. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 13) is DENIED without prejudice. Ms. Lorraine is
advised she may re-file the motion for leave to amend, but reminds her to attach a complete copy
of the proposed amended complaint to the motion.
Minutes of Proceedings
January 10, 2017
The court directs the courtroom deputy to update the docket with Plaintiff’s correct phone
number and Mr. Sheppard’s email address. Furthermore, the courtroom deputy is instructed to
mail Ms. Lorriane and Mr. Sheppard a hard copy of the docket sheet with the minutes of
There being no additional matters to address at this time, court adjourns at 10:45 a.m.
DEBRA K. KEMPI, CLERK OF COURT
Katie Lynn Ogden, Deputy Clerk
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?