Stewart v. Stoller et al
Filing
189
MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order-adopting Report and Recommendations re 183 Report and Recommendations.; re 143 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 111 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Dean Webb, 130 MOTION to Strike 127 A ffidavit in Support of Motion of Mike Otto MOTION to Strike 127 Affidavit in Support of Motion of Mike Otto. See order for further details. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 4/20/12. (jmr) Modified on 4/20/2012-report and recommendation 143 has already been ruled on. (jmr).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
SOPHIA STEWART,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:07-CV-0552
MICHAEL T. STROLLER, JONATHAN
LUBELL, DEAN WEBB, GARY BROWN
and JOHN DOES I through X,
Judge Clark Waddoups
Defendants.
Before the court is the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to strike the
Answer of Jonathan Lubell for failure to appear at the initial pretrial conference on December 7,
2011, and for again failing to appear pursuant to the magistrate judge’s order to show cause
hearing on January 11, 2012. In reviewing the report and recommendation under a 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) referral, the court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”
Although Mr. Lubell’s objection was to be received on January 25, 2012 (Dkt. No. 183), it was
not received until January 31, 2012. (Dkt. No. 184.) The court notes that at no time did Mr.
Lubell move the court to file an extension. The objection is therefore disregarded and the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is adopted in its entirety. Mr. Lubell’s Answer is
hereby stricken.
Although Mr. Lubell’s Answer is stricken, the court will entertain a motion by Mr. Lubell
for leave to file an Amended Answer. The memorandum in support of the motion must address
1
whether Mr. Lubbell has a good faith defense to the claims against him. Because of Mr. Lubell’s
health and the difficulty he has had in representing himself and his failure and inability to
otherwise comply with the court’s prior orders, the motion for leave to file an amended answer
will be entertained by the court only if (1) Mr. Lubell appears through an attorney admitted to
practice in Utah and before this court who has the ability to appear in person in court, or (2) Mr.
Labell demonstrates by competent evidence that he has the mental and physical ability to
represent himself and personally appear in court. If Mr. Lubell chooses to so file, his motion for
leave to file an Amended Answer must be received by the court on or before May 20, 2012 and
have attached as an exhibit the proposed Amended Answer. Failure to retain counsel and timely
submit the Amended Answer will bar Mr. Lubell from further defending the claims against him
as stated in the complaint against him in this case.
DATED this 20th day of April, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Judge
2
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?