Robinson v. Oaks et al
Filing
78
ORDER: The #47 Motion to Disqualify Counsel is deemed WITHDRAWN as to Mr. Spainhour and is DENIED as to Mr. Oaks. Plaintiff's #56 Motion to Compel is DENIED. Plaintiff's #59 Motion for Leave to File Surreply is GRANTED and the Court will consider Plaintiff's Surreply (Doc. 59-1 at 6-17). The #58 Motion for Early Discovery Regarding Rao and the #70 Motion for Early Discovery Regarding Video Footage are DENIED. Plaintiff's #73 Brief, which is construed as a motion, is also DENIED. Plaintiff's #65 Motion to E-File is DENIED. Plaintiff's #77 Motion to Strike is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf on 9/9/2021. (See Order for further details.) (maf)
N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:21-cv-00123-MR-WCM
ALBERT ROBINSON
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DAVID KEITH OAKS, ESQ.,
)
THE LAW FIRM OF DAVID K. OAKS, P.A.,
)
SECTION 23 PROPERTY OWNER'S
)
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
)
FIVE OAKS INVESTMENTS, INC.,
)
THE DAVID K. OAKS PERSONAL TRUST,
)
D. V. RAO, JOHN EDWARD SPAINHOUR,
)
MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, PLLC, )
SECTION 23, PROPERTY OWNER'S
)
ASSOCIATION, INC.
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________
)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the following motions:
(1) Motion to Dismiss and Answer to First Amended Complaint of David K.
Oaks, P.A. and Five Oaks Investments, Inc. (Doc. 34).
(2) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint by Section 23
(Doc. 37).
(3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel/Defendants David K.
Oak and John Edward Spainhour (the “Motion to Disqualify Counsel,”
Doc. 47).
(4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Opposing Counsel to Identify His Client and
the Party Paying His Client’s Attorney’s Fees (the “Motion to Compel,”
Doc. 56).
(5) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Pre Rule 26 Discovery on
Case 1:21-cv-00123-MR-WCM Document 78 Filed 09/09/21 Page 1 of 4
Defendant David K. Oaks (the “Motion for Early Discovery Regarding
Rao,” Doc. 58).
(6) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Surreply to Defendants’ David K.
Oaks, P.A. and Five Oaks Investments, Inc. Reply (the “Motion for Leave
to File Surreply,” Doc. 59).
(7) Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) Attack on the Void Orders Issued in the State and
USDC and Submitted by the Defendants in Support of their Motion to
Dismiss (the “Rule 60(b) Motion,” Doc. 60).
(8) Rule 11 Motion Against Plaintiff Albert Robinson by Section 23,
McAngus, Goudelock & Courie, PLLC, and John E. Spainhour (the “Rule
11 Motion,” Doc. 62).
(9) Motion to Dismiss filed by McAngus Goudelock and Courie, PLLC and
John E. Spainhour (Doc. 63).
(10)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Begin Using the NextGen E-File
System on 08/30/2021 or in the Alternative Restrict Pro Se Litigant John
Edward Spainhour from Using the Court E-Filing System and to Have
Him Refile the E-Filed Papers Conventionally (the “Motion to E-File,”
Doc. 65).
(11)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Pre Rule 26 Discovery on
Defendant David K. Oaks, P.A. and/or Section 23, Property Owner’s
Association, Inc. (the “Motion for Early Discovery Regarding Video
Footage,” Doc. 70).
(12)
Plaintiff’s “Brief in Support of Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for
Leave to Conduct Pre-Rule 26 Discovery on Defendants Section 23,
Property Owner’s Association, Inc., Harvey Goldstein, Nancy Joan
Peraine aka Nancy Marto, and Non-Defendants Dawn Marie Frank and
Teresa Lynn Boucher and for the Court to Issue an Order for an
Injunction Prohibiting the Destruction of any and all Records of both the
Real and Fake the [sic] Defendants,” which is construed as a separate
request for early discovery. (Doc. 73).
(13)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Defendant’s ECF Filed Doc. #76
Mis-Titled as “Notice of Supplemental Authority” (the “Motion to Strike,”
Doc. 77).
2
Case 1:21-cv-00123-MR-WCM Document 78 Filed 09/09/21 Page 2 of 4
A hearing was conducted on all motions on September 9, 2021. Plaintiff,
who is proceeding pro se, appeared for himself. David K. Oaks appeared on
behalf of The Law Firm of David K. Oaks, P.A. and Five Oaks Investments,
Inc. John E. Spainhour appeared on behalf of himself, as well as on behalf of
McAngus, Goudelock & Courie, PLLC; Section 23, Property Owner's
Association, Inc.; and Section 23 Property Owner's Association, Inc.
Following the hearing, the undersigned took the Motions to Dismiss
(Docs. 34, 37, & 63), the Rule 11 Motion (Doc. 62), and the Rule 60(b) Motion
(Doc. 60) under advisement.
Additionally, the undersigned ruled orally on certain motions. This
Order memorializes those rulings.
With respect to Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel (Doc. 47),
Plaintiff withdrew this Motion as to Mr. Spainhour during the hearing. With
respect to Mr. Oaks, Plaintiff has not established that disqualification
pursuant to the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct is required.
Accordingly, the Motion to Disqualify Counsel (Doc. 47) is deemed
WITHDRAWN as to Mr. Spainhour and is DENIED as to Mr. Oaks.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 56) is DENIED.
Considering Plaintiff’s pro se status, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Surreply (Doc. 59) is GRANTED and the Court will consider Plaintiff’s
Surreply (Doc. 59-1 at 6-17). It is unnecessary for Plaintiff to file his Surreply
3
Case 1:21-cv-00123-MR-WCM Document 78 Filed 09/09/21 Page 3 of 4
again.
With respect to Plaintiff’s Motions to conduct early discovery, Plaintiff
has not established that early discovery is appropriate. See Teamworks
Innovations, Inc. v. Starbucks Corporation, 1:19CV1240, 2020 WL 406360, at
*3 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 24, 2020) (applying good cause/reasonableness standard)
(citing 8A Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2046.1
(3d ed. & Aug. 2019 Update)). Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff seeks leave
to conduct early discovery beyond that expressly allowed by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the Motion for Early Discovery Regarding Rao (Doc. 58) and
the Motion for Early Discovery Regarding Video Footage (Doc. 70) are
DENIED. Plaintiff’s “Brief in Support of Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for
Leave to Conduct Pre-Rule 26 Discovery” (Doc. 73), which is construed as a
motion, is also DENIED for the same reasons.
With respect to Plaintiff’s Motion to E-File (Doc. 65), as Plaintiff has been
receiving notice of the filings in this matter and has not shown any prejudice
or an inability to file conventionally, the Motion is DENIED.
Finally, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 77) is DENIED.
It is so ordered.
Signed: September 9, 2021
4
Case 1:21-cv-00123-MR-WCM Document 78 Filed 09/09/21 Page 4 of 4
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?