United States District Court, D. Nevada
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF: Constance Lorraine (Telephonically)
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS: Michael Lehners (Present obo: Norman
L. Wallin); Kevin Sheppard (Pro Se, Telephonically); Aaron
Waite (Telephonically obo: Santander Consumer USA, Inc.)
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
OF PROCEEDINGS: Status Conference
a.m. Court convenes.
conference is scheduled to address several motions pending
before the court.
court first addresses defendant Wallin's Motion for Order
to Show Cause (ECF No. 10). After hearing from counsel and
Ms. Lorraine, the court does not find it can grant any relief
in favor of Mr. Wallin concerning his motion for order to
show cause because the document that prohibits
ghost-lawyering applies to members of the bar-not pro
se parties. Therefore, defendant Wallin's motion
(ECF No. 10) is DENIED.
court next addresses Plaintiff's “Motion to Stop
Defendant from Attempts to Repossess Plaintiff's 2015
Fiat” (ECF No. 38). Ms. Lorraine confirms that the 2015
Fiat (“vehicle) is the vehicle she claims to have been
coerced into buying and is the subject of this lawsuit.
However, Ms. Lorraine states for the record that she does not
intend to return the vehicle back to the dealership. In
addition, Ms. Lorraine represents she does not wish to have
the court order the sales transaction of the vehicle void,
although the court notes that is one of the many prayers for
relief Ms. Lorraine lists in her complaint (ECF No. 4, pg.
15, ¶ 6).
Waite on behalf of defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc.
(“Santander”) reports to the court that an order
has been entered in the Third District Court, Lyon County,
State of Nevada, Case No. 16-CV-0670 (“State Court
Case”) enjoining the Defendants from repossessing the
vehicle. Mr. Waite explains his client has placed a hold on
any action to repossess the court at this time because of the
order entered in the State Court Case.
hearing from Mr. Waite and Ms. Lorraine, the court does not
find an injunction or retraining order is appropriate under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 65. Additionally, the court does not find that
it is within the subject matter of this lawsuit where
Plaintiff attempts to declare the sale transaction of the
vehicle void to now attempt to enjoin the repossession of the
vehicle. Furthermore, in view of Mr. Waite's
representations, Santander will not seek repossession of the
vehicle until the State Court Case order restricting the
Defendants from repossessing the vehicle is again addressed
by the State Court. Therefore, in view of the court's
findings, Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 38) is
court next addresses Plaintiff's “Motion for
Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. ¶ 1441(b) Federal
Question” (ECF No. 32). Ms. Lorraine indicates that the
State Court judge suggested Plaintiff remove the State Court
Case to the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada. The court explains to Ms. Lorraine that when removing
a State case to Federal jurisdiction, the notice of removal
shall be filed as a new action and not submitted as a motion
or filing within a case already established in federal court.
Therefore, in light of Ms. Lorraine submitting her motion to
remove in the instant case, the motion (ECF No. 32) is
DENIED as improperly filed and shall be
stricken from the record. The court advises Ms. Lorraine she
is not precluded from attempting to remove the State Court
Case to the Federal jurisdiction, but in order to do so she
must properly submit the notice of removal in a new action.
of the court's order to deny Plaintiff's motion to
remove, defendant Santander's Motion to Remand (ECF No.
40) is DENIED as moot.
court next addresses Plaintiff' “Motion for Leave
to Amend Claim and for Joinder of Additional Defendant”
(ECF No. 13), which fails to include a copy of the proposed
amended complaint. Ms. Lorraine is advised that, pursuant to
LR 15-1, she must attach the proposed amended pleading to a
motion seeking leave of the court to file an amended
pleading. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No.
13) is DENIED without prejudice. Ms.
Lorraine is advised she may re-file the motion for leave to
amend, but reminds her to attach a complete copy of the
proposed amended complaint to the motion.
court directs the courtroom deputy to update the docket with
Plaintiff's correct phone number and Mr. Sheppard's
email address. Furthermore, the courtroom deputy is
instructed to mail Ms. Lorriane and Mr. ...