Towner v. USAA Federal Savings Bank
Filing
84
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 67 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 12/29/14 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
MARK EDWARD TOWNER,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00148-DN-DBP
v.
District Judge David Nuffer
USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK
doing business as USAA FINANCIAL
SERVICES,
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
Defendant.
I.
INTRODUCTION
This matter was referred to the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Dkt. 4.) Pro se
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by
refusing to remove derogatory information from Plaintiff’s credit report stemming from Plaintiff’
use of a credit card that belonged to his mother. (Dkt. 1.) Defendant alleges counterclaims for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment. (Dkt. 34; see also Dkt. 56, 59 (allowing amendment of
answer to include unjust enrichment counterclaim).)
On November 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay these proceedings for ninety days to
seek legal counsel. 1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
1
Plaintiff’s motion is entitled “Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Mark E. Towner Motion to Seek Legal
Counsel.” The Court will refer to the motion as a request to stay the proceedings as a stay is the
only relief sought by Plaintiff. The Court does so to make absolutely clear the Mr. Towner is free
to seek and retain legal counsel any time, at his own expense.
Page 1 of 3
II.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff moves for a stay because Defendant “has used strong legal maneuvering to
overwhelm Plaintiff/Counterdefendants [sic] ability to properly represent himself in these
proceedings.” (Dkt. 67 p.2.) Plaintiff indicates that he intends to retain counsel to respond to
Defendant’s motions for summary judgment and default judgment. (Dkt. 67 p.3.)
Defendant opposes the request for a stay. (Dkt. 73.) Defendant asserts that it has done
nothing to impair or impede Plaintiff’s ability to represent himself and that anticipated retention
of legal counsel is not a sufficient basis upon which to request a stay.
The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments unpersuasive. Plaintiff has not identified any actions
taken by the Defendant that would justify staying these proceedings. Further, Plaintiff continues
to file documents pro se (including oppositions to Defendant’s motions for default judgment and
summary judgment).
Plaintiff filed the present motion on November 21, 2014. (Dkt. 67.) Over one month has
passed. In that time, no additional counsel has filed an appearance on Plaintiff Towner’s behalf
(Ms. Towner remains counsel of record for the limited purposes set forth in her notice of
appearance (Dkt. 33.)). Likewise, Plaintiff has given no indication that he has retained additional
counsel. Further, Plaintiff elected to file, without the aid of counsel, responses to Defendant’s
motions for summary judgment and motion for default judgment. (Dkt. 70, 75) 2 Accordingly, the
Court will not stay the proceedings.
Nonetheless, Plaintiff is not precluded from retaining legal counsel at any time. Nothing in
the Court’s Order should be read to suggest otherwise. Mr. Towner may secure counsel of his
2
Plaintiff also filed a motion to strike Defendant’s counterclaim after making his motion to stay.
(Dkt. 71.)
Page 2 of 3
choosing, at his own expense. Anticipated retention of such counsel presents an insufficient basis
to stay these proceedings.
III.
ORDER
For the reasons analyzed above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to stay the
proceedings as requested in Plaintiff’s “motion to seek legal counsel.” (Dkt. 67.)
The Court wishes to clarify yet again that nothing in this Order precludes Mr. Towner from
seeking or retaining legal counsel. Mr. Towner, like any litigant, may retain counsel of his
choice, at his own expense.
Dated this 29th day of December, 2014.
By the Court:
Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 3 of 3
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?