WHITE v. HINDS et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 6/15/2015. (kas, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
HALL MC-NEAL WHITE, JR.,
Civil Action No. 13-7441 (MAS) (TJB)
LENNOX S. HINDS, ESQ, et al.,
SHIPP, District ,Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Defendants Lennox S. Hinds, Esq.
("Hinds") and Steven, Hinds & White, PC (collectively, "Defendants"). Defendants move to
dismiss Plaintiff Hall Mc-Neal White, Jr.'s ("White" or "Plaintiff') action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff filed an affidavit in opposition to Defendants'
motion four days after the deadline for the submission. 1 (ECF No. 11.) Defendants replied (ECF
No. 12), and Plaintiff filed an unauthorized sur-reply (ECF No. 13). 2
The Court, having
considered the parties' arguments, decides the matter without legal argument pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 78.1 and grants Defendants' motion to dismiss.
Though untimely, the Court will accept Plaintiff's affidavit. See D'Orazio v. Wash. Twp., 501
F. App'x 185, 187 (3d Cir. 2012) (holding that it is within the District Court's discretion to
accept late filings).
In their respective submissions, both Plaintiff and Defendants requested that the Court impose
sanctions on the other. (Defs.' Reply Br. 5, ECF No. 12; Pl.'s Sur-Reply Br. 2, ECF No. 13.)
Since Rule 11 motions for sanctions "must be made separately from any other motion," the Court
denies these requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2).
This case involves a dispute over Hinds's handling, as Plaintiff's attorney, of a prior §
1983 action against police officers, state and municipal officials, and the City of Trenton, New
Jersey. In the underlying action, Plaintiff alleged that police deprived him of his Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights in a series of encounters. (Am. Compl. fJ[ 30, 33, 47, 51, 57,
White v. City of Trenton, et al., No. 06-5177 (D.N.J. Aug. 14, 2007) ("White I"), ECF No. 19.)
Hinds represented Plaintiff during White I until the court relieved Hinds from his position as
counsel in response to "Mr. White's apparent dissatisfaction with counsel and counsel's request
to withdraw from [the] matter." (White I, ECF No. 73.) In the present case, Plaintiff claims that
Hinds violated his constitutional rights by committing legal malpractice while prosecuting the
underlying civil rights action.
(Compl. 3-9, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also claims that Hinds
conspired with the defense attorneys in the underlying action to undermine Plaintiff's case and
further violate his constitutional rights. (Id. at 9-10; Pl.'s Aff. 9-10, ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff
requests money damages for these claims. (Compl. 15.)
The following background information addresses only those allegations and facts relevant
to the motion under consideration. Plaintiff resides in Trenton, New Jersey. (Compl. 1.) Hinds
resides in Somerset, New Jersey. (Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss
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?