Reynolds v. Verizon Wireless, LLC et al
ORDER: The Court: 1) DENIES as moot Plaintiff's Motion # 25 for Disqualification of Counsel; 2) DENIES Plaintiff's Motion # 27 for Subpoenas with leave to renew; 3) Takes Defendants' Motion # 21 to Dismiss UNDER ADVISEMENT on April 21, 2017; and 4) Holds in ABEYANCE Plaintiff's Motions # 3 , # 26 for Immediate Injunctive Relief. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 3/31/2017 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (pvh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
GREG M. REYNOLDS,
VERIZON WIRELESS, LLC, and
JOHN G. STRATTON,
This matter comes before the Court on Motion (#25) for
Disqualification of Counsel, Motion (#26) for Immediate
Injunctive Relief, and Motion (#27) for Subpoenas.
On December 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this
On December 9, 2016, Plaintiff also filed a Motion (#3)
for Immediate Injunctive Relief and asked the Court to "remove
information from his credit report."
The Court advised Plaintiff
that the record did not support the Court taking action on the
1 - ORDER
Motion for Immediate Injunctive Relief until, at least, counsel
appeared for Defendants.
Defense counsel has now appeared.
On March 14, 2017,
Defendants filed a Motion (#21) to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint
for failure to state a claim.
On March 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed
a Response (#24) to the Motion to Dismiss.
Defendants' reply in
support of their Motion is due April 21, 2017, and the Court will
take the Motion to. Dismiss under advisement on that date.
On March 24, 2017, Plaintiff also filed a second Motion
(#26) for Immediate Injunctive Relief.
The Court will hold both
of Plaintiff's Motions (#3,#26) for Immediate Injunctive Relief
in abeyance pending resolution of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
If the Court denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Court will
set a briefing schedule regarding Plaintiff's Motions for
Finally, on March 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion (#25)
for Disqualification of Counsel and a Motion (#27) for Subpoenas.
In the Motion for Disqualification of Counsel Plaintiff seeks to
disqualify Darrel W. Clark as counsel for Defendants.
not appear to be a member of the Oregon State Bar or admitted to
practice before this Court, and he has not requested pro hac vice
admission to this Court pursuant to Local Rule 83-3.
result, Clark does not represent Defendants in this Court at this
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for
2 - ORDER
Disqualification as moot.
If Clark wishes to appear in this
action, he must seek admission as required by the Local Rules of
In his Motion (#27) for Subpoenas Plaintiff seeks to compel
various entities to provide Plaintiff with information regarding
his credit report.
Those entities are not named parties in this
action and do not appear to have been previously served with any
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 sets forth the procedures
to obtain and to serve a· subpoena on a nonparty for the purpose
of obtaining information from such a person.
The form of
subpoena can be obtained from and issued by the Clerk of Court at
After the subpoena has been properly issued
and served on the nonparty, Plaintiff may seek a court order to
compel compliance if the subpoenaed party does not comply with
At present, therefore, the Court does not have the authority
to compel the third parties to provide information to Plaintiff,
and, as a result, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for
Subpoenas with leave to renew after Plaintiff satisfies the
requirements of Rule 45.
In summary, the Court:
DENIES as moot Plaintiff's Motion (#25) for
Disqualification of Counsel;
3 - ORDER
DENIES Plaintiff's Motion (#27) for Subpoenas with
leave to renew;
Takes Defendants' Motion (#21) to Dismiss UNDER
ADVISEMENT on April 21, 2017; and
Holds in ABEYANCE Plaintiff's Motions (#3, #26)
for Immediate Injunctive Relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 31st day of March, 2017.
United States District Judge
4 - ORDER
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?