The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gershon, United States District Judge
On March 2, 2007, after the plaintiffs had been afforded an extraordinarily long period of time, both before and after their most recent lawyer had been relieved as counsel, this court, in the absence of class counsel, decertified the class. All discovery has been completed, there has been extensive motion practice, and only two claims, against the remaining defendant, APFA, survive. The defendant, in a June 11, 2007 letter, now seeks a pre-motion conference, or, in the alternative, a briefing schedule for a proposed motion for summary judgment as to those remaining claims.
On June 6, 2007, Magistrate Judge Matsumoto granted applications by seven individuals who were not named plaintiffs to proceed pro se. That order is vacated because the Magistrate Judge mistakenly believed that they were named plaintiffs.
To assure the orderly management of this litigation, the court now issues the following orders:
1. The applications of all individuals who are not named plaintiffs and seek to "proceed pro se" in this litigation are denied, and no further applications will be entertained. This ruling is without prejudice to any individual who chooses to bring an action on his or her own behalf in an appropriate forum. The application of non-party Brigitte Parker for appointment of pro bono counsel to represent the class is also denied.
2. The defendant is authorized to bring a motion for summary judgment pursuant to the following schedule: APFA shall serve its moving papers by July 25, 2007. APFA's papers must include the appropriate notice to pro se litigants as described in Local Civil Rule 56.2. Any opposition papers by plaintiffs must be served on APFA's counsel by September 4, 2007. APFA shall serve its reply papers and file with the court all papers pertaining to the motion by September 28, 2007.
3. In light of my determination that no pre-motion conference is necessary for the proposed motion for summary judgment, responses by the plaintiffs to APFA's June 11, 2007 request for a pre-motion conference are not required.
4. The defendant is directed to promptly serve this order on (a) all named plaintiffs; (b) all non-party individuals who have filed applications to "proceed pro se" in this action; (c) all individuals identified on defendant's service list to whom it sent its June 11, 2007 letter; and (d) any future applicants who seek to "proceed pro se."
NINA GERSHON United States District Judge
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw ...