Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Drywall v. Heery International

September 13, 2007

BLAIR DRYWALL AND TAYLOR CONSTRUCTION, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
HEERY INTERNATIONAL, INC., FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA AND FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Leon Jordan United States District Judge

ORDER

By order [doc. 33] dated August 7, 2007, the court granted the motion to withdraw filed by counsel for the commercial plaintiffs in this case. Therein, the undersigned made clear that the plaintiffs' principals, Freddie Blair and Ronnie Taylor, may not act as attorneys for their businesses before this court. See United States v. 9.19 Acres of Land, 416 F.2d 1244, 1245 (6th Cir. 1969).

Now before the court is the "Motion of Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Heery International, Inc. to Exclude Freddie Blair as Pro Se Counsel, and for Sanctions" [doc. 34], in which defendant alleges continuing efforts by Freddie Blair to act as legal counsel for his corporation in this case. Because the court has already ruled that Mr. Blair may not represent his business pro se, defendant's motion to exclude [doc. 34] is DENIED AS MOOT WITH LEAVE TO RENEW.

Nonetheless, it is observed that the allegations contained in defendant's motion, if true, at a minimum approach contempt of this court's prior order. The court takes the possibility that its orders are being disregarded quite seriously. If by any future filing the court is made aware of any additional attempts by Mr. Blair and/or Mr. Taylor to act as legal counsel in this case, the undersigned will promptly consider monetary sanctions against them in their personal capacities.

The commercial plaintiffs remain responsible for notifying the court in writing of the identity of their new counsel no later than the deadline imposed in the court's prior order [doc. 33]. The commercial plaintiffs are again cautioned that failure to timely obtain replacement counsel may be construed as a failure to prosecute, which will eventually result in the dismissal of their complaint.

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to each commercial plaintiff at the addresses provided in the certificate of service, document 32.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20070913

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.