January 26, 1999, ORDER and MEMORANDUM by Judge Mason in LAMBROS vs. FAULKNER, Civil No. 98-1621. Total of four (4) pages.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

ORDER

JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS

Plaintiff

vs.

ESTATE/WILL/BUSINESS INSURANCE OF DECEASED ATTORNEY CHARLES W. FAULKNER

ATTORNEY SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER

FAULKNER & FAULKNER

JOHN & JANE DOE'S

Defendants

CIVIL CASE NO.
98-1621 (DSD-JMM)

 

The above matter came on before the undersigned upon the following numerous Motions: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery [Docket No. 22]; Plaintiffs Motion to Amend [Docket No. 25]; Plaintif~s Motion to Alter Pleadings [Docket No. 26]; and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 31]. The Motions were submitted to the Court on the written pleadings.

The Court, being duly advised in the premises, upon all of the files, records and proceedings here!n, now makes and enters the following Order.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff s Motions to Amend [Docket No. 25] and to Alter Pleadings [Docket No. 26] are denied without prejudice, for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum.

2. Plaintiff’s s Motion to Compel Discovery [Docket No. 22] is denied.

3. The Court will rule upon Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Docket

 

No. 31] in a separate Report and Recommendation to the District Court

End of page 1

4. Defendants shall retain additional legal counsel to act as co-counsel or substitute counsel, to insure that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court will be observed.

5. The parties shall be bound by the following Order with respect to Motions and the taking of discovery herein, until further written Order of this Court:

a. The parties shall employ the caption of this case as set forth in this Order.

b. All Motions will be heard on the written pleadings, without oral argument, unless otherwise Ordered by this Court.

c. Plaintiff may serve one additional Motion to Amend.

(1) Said Motion to Amend, and the proposed Amended Complaint, shall comply with the requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of this Court, and shall be made no later than February 26, 1999.

(2) If Plaintiff makes a Motion to Amend, Defendants shall respond in writing no later than 14 days after service of the Motion. The Court will then take the matter under advisement.

d. Except for the Motion to Amend permitted by Paragraph 6(c) of this Order, no Motions, nor any other pleadings shall be served upon any party or filed herein, until further Order of this Court.

Dated January 26, 1999

Signed:

John M. Mason
United States Magistrate Judge

End of page 2

MEMORANDUM

The initial Complaint does not appear to comply with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in numerous respects, including Rule 8 (the complaint shall contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief"). See In re Buffets Securities Litigation, 906 F. Supp. 1293 (D. Minn. 1995). Plaintiff desires to amend his Complaint to add the personal representative of the estate of Charles Faulkner, and in other respects seeks to cure alleged potential defects in his Complaint. The proposed Amended Complaint does not appear to cure the defects in the initial Complaint. We therefore deny the Motion to Amend without prejudice, because we wish to afford to Plaintiff one more opportunity to cure the defects. We are limiting the time within which Plaintiff may seek to Amend, in order that this important initial task be accomplished by making his Motion no later than February 26, 1999. The Motion to Compel Discovery is denied because it has been made to appear to the Court that Defendants have filed responses, albeit tardily, to the discovery. Although the discovery responses are not complete, the Court determines that further discovery in this matter should be deferred until further Order of this Court.

Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants have conducted this proceeding in an orderly fashion. Counsel for Defendants have repeatedly failed to file pleadings and discovery responses in a timely fashion, and otherwise have failed to conduct themselves in accordance with the requirements of the Rules of this Court. Accordingly, we require that they retain additional counsel or substitute counsel to insure that there will be compliance with those Rules. See Speckman v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., 7 F. Supp.2d

3

End of page 3

1030 (D. Neb. 1997). We are also not unmindful that in another context, it has been said of Plaintiff that he "takes great pleasure in antagonizing the legal system. It is highly likely that further court proceedings will involve much manipulation on the part of Mr. Lambros." U.S. v. Lambros, 65 F.3d 698, 701 (8th Cir. 1995).

The Order issued today is designed to cause this action to proceed in an orderly fashion, beginning with the determination of the document which will serve as the Complaint herein. Not until after that document takes final form will the Court be in a position to determine whether the Complaint should or should not be dismissed. Thereafter, further discovery may or may not be appropriate. Given the history of this case, we have required that the question of the final form of the Complaint be considered first.

End of page 4

The address for the Boycott Brazil homepage is:
http://brazilboycott.org

Return to Boycott Brazil Homepage

For more information write (snail mail) JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS directly at:

JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS
Prisoner No. 00436-124
U. S. Penitentiary Leavenworth
PO Box 1000
Leavenworth, KS 66048-1000
USA

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE IN MY BOYCOTT OF BRAZILIAN PRODUCTS.