Six v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Filing 10

ORDER granting 5 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice added Robert M. Wood for Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo & Company Group Disability Income Policy Plan; granting [6 ] Motion for Extension of Time Answer Plaintiffs Complaint ; striking 8 Motion to Dismiss and shall be filed in accordance with this Courts standing orders no later than midnight, July 15, 2015. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 7/14/2015. (eef)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-00279-FDW
ROBERT SIX,
Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; LIBERTY
LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF
BOSTON; AND WELLS FARGO &
COMPANY GROUP DISABILITY
INCOME POLICY PLAN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on the “Application For Admission To
Practice Pro Hac Vice” (Document No. 55) filed by John W. Sulau, concerning Robert M. Wood
on July 1, 2015. Mr. Wood seeks to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Defendants. Upon review
and consideration of the motion, which was accompanied by submission of the necessary fee, the
Court will grant the motion.
Also before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Extension for Time to Answer Plaintiff’s
Complaint (Doc. No. 6). Motions of this kind are generally referred to a magistrate judge;
however, in this rare instance, all magistrate judges are recused from this matter. Accordingly, the
Court inadvertently overlooked this pending motion. Nevertheless, the Court GRANTS the
motion nunc pro tunc allowing Defendants until July 13, 2015, to file their Answer and any other
responsive pleading. The Court notes that Defendants filed their Answer and a Motion to Dismiss
on July 13, 2015, and the Court therefore deems these documents timely filed.

Also before the Court, sua sponte, is defense counsel’s multiple failures to follow this
Court’s standing orders. The Court notes that Defendants filed their motion for extension of time
on July 2, 2015, the day of the original deadline to respond, in violation of this Court’s standing
orders. See INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER, Entered pursuant to the Standing Order Governing
Civil Case Management Before the Honorable Frank D. Whitney, Misc. No. 3:07-MC-47 (Doc.
No. 2., pp. 4-5)1 (“Any motion to extend the foregoing time and/or word limitations shall be filed
immediately upon counsel learning of the need for the same and in any event no fewer than three
(3) business days in advance of the filing deadline sought to be modified.”). In addition,
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss fails to contain a certification of word count that it is 4,500 words
or less. Id. at p. 4 (“The memorandum of law shall include a certificate by the attorney (or the
party if unrepresented), subject to Rule 11 that the submission complies with the foregoing word
limitation. Non-complying briefs will be stricken summarily from the record.”). Accordingly, the
Court summarily STRIKES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, but will permit defense counsel until
midnight on July 15, 2015, to re-file its motion in compliance with the Court’ standing orders.2
Counsel for all parties, particularly out of district counsel who may not be familiar with
this Court’s standing orders, are hereby instructed to immediately familiarize themselves with
those standing orders. Counsel is cautioned that the Court may not be so lenient in its treatment
of violations to standing orders going forward in this matter.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that in accordance with Local Rule 83.1, the
“Application For Admission To Practice Pro Hac Vice” (Document No. 5) is GRANTED. Mr.
Wood is hereby admitted pro hac vice to represent Defendants. Defendants’ Motion for Extension

1

This document is found on the docket for the instant case with a link to the standing orders pursuant to an entry
made by the Clerk’s office on June 26, 2015.
2 The Court notes the motion also lacked the requisite certificate of service.

of Time (Doc. No. 6) is also GRANTED nunc pro tunc, and the Court deems Defendants’ Answer
and Motion to Dismiss to be timely filed; however, the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8) is
summarily STRICKEN and shall be filed in accordance with this Court’s standing orders no later
than midnight, July 15, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 14, 2015