Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583-78/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY D. HAMILTON, et al., )

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

HENRY W. WILLMS, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

)

____________________________________)

CASE NO. 1:02-CV-6583 AWI SMS

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

THE COURT TO RULE ON

PENDING REQUESTS

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

DIRECT ORDER TO APPEAL

DOCUMENT #559

ORDER SETTING THIS ACTION

FOR TRIAL ON NOVEMBER 5, 2013

(Documents #781, #782, & #783)

BACKGROUND

This action was filed on July 17, 2002, in the United States District Court for the District

of Colorado, but it was transferred to this court. The Court is proceeding with Plaintiffs’ second

amended complaint filed on June 11, 2003. 

The Court’s November 2, 2006 Pretrial Order set the trial in this action for December 5,

2006 and the motions in limine hearing set for November 21, 2006, which was later reset to

November 28, 2006. The parties then filed motions in limine. On November 28, 2006, at the

motions in limine hearing Plaintiffs raised the issue of their need to still depose Suzzane Conry. 

On November 29, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the deposition of Ms. Conry and to

compel the enforcement of a previous agreement with Defendants concerning Ms Conry’s

deposition. After informal discovery interventions by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder were

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 784 Filed 03/20/13 Page 1 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

unsuccessful, on December 4, 2006, the Court held a telephonic hearing with the parties and

denied any request to continue the trial to resolve the discovery matter concerning Ms. Conry. 

A little before 4:00 p.m. on December 4, 2006, the parties’ attorneys contacted the Court

and stated that they had reached a stipulation to continue the trial. The parties and the parties’

attorneys informed the Court that they had negotiated a stipulation that would continue the trial

in exchange for Plaintiffs eliminating certain parties and certain claims from this action. The

parties stated the purpose of this agreement was to allow Plaintiffs time to file a motion regarding

any agreement on Ms. Conry’s deposition. The Court then vacated the trial date and ordered that

the stipulation be memorialized in a written document, signed by counsel and the parties. 

When the parties did not file the stipulated dismissal and order agreeing to allow further

discovery motions, on December 11, 2006, Defendants filed a motion to enforce the stipulation

and award sanctions. On March 6, 2007, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to enforce the

December 4, 2006 oral stipulation. (Doc. # 559). As part of this order, the Court granted

judgment in favor of several Defendants and entered judgment in favor of the remaining

Defendants on the fifth and sixth claims for relief. The Court also awarded sanctions. On

October 4, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motions for reconsideration of the March 6, 2007

order. (Doc. #672).

On September 27, 2007, November 19, 2007, and April 30, 2008, Plaintiff filed

numerous discovery motions concerning Ms. Conry’s deposition and other discovery agreements. 

On June 6, 2008, Magistrate Judge Snyder issued a minute order clarifying that the only issue

before the Court was whether Plaintiffs should be permitted to take the deposition of Ms. Conry. 

On June 6, 2008, Judge Snyder issued a minute order allowing Plaintiffs to reopen discovery for

the limited purpose of taking Ms. Conry’s deposition. Judge Snyder then informed the parties

that the deposition must be appropriately noticed and held at the Courthouse for the Federal

District and Division within which Ms. Conry resided pursuant to Rule 45(a)(2) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. The deposition of Ms. Conry was never taken pursuant to Rule 45.

2

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 784 Filed 03/20/13 Page 2 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This entire action was then informally stayed as the parties litigated a related state court

action. On February 8, 2011, Defendants filed a status report in which they notified the Court

that the state court action had been concluded. 

On March 28, 2011, the Court denied any outstanding motions for the Court to enforce

any discovery agreement concerning Ms. Conry’s deposition. The Court then set this action for

trial. The Court ordered the parties to file an Amended Pretrial Statement by July 29, 2011, set

the Pretrial Conference for August 12, 2011, and set trial in this action for September 20, 2011

On July 29, 2011, Defendants file their Pretrial Statement. Plaintiffs did not file a

Pretrial Statement, ask for additional time in which to file a Pretrial Statement, or contact the

Court in any way. On August 11, 2011, the Court found that Plaintiffs’ failure to “file a pre-trial

statement rendered the pre-trial procedures incomplete and the pre-trial conference impractical.”

The Court then ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this action should not be

dismissed for Plaintiffs’ failure to file a pre-trial statement. 

On August 11, 2011, Attorney Michael L. Abbott (“Attorney Abbott”), on behalf of

Plaintiffs, filed an application requesting that the Court find certain prior orders final for the

purposes of appeal. 

After requesting an extension of time, on September 30, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a response

to the Court’s August 11, 2011 order to show cause. Plaintiffs stated that issues with their

attorneys had caused them to not file a timely Pretrial Statement. Plaintiffs also requested to be

allowed to appeal the Court’s March 28, 2011 order (Document #559). As to Attorney Abbott,

Plaintiffs requested that the Court enter an Order for Attorney Abbott to prepare a “Substitution

of Counsel” for Plaintiffs to execute, the Court issue an Order clarifying that Attorney Abbott

was no longer Plaintiffs’ counsel of record in the instant case, and the Court advise any new

counsel Plaintiffs may retain that they will be treated fairly.

On October 28, 2011, the Court discharged the order to show cause and gave Plaintiffs

the exact order they had requested concerning the issue of Attorney Abbott’s representation. 

3

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 784 Filed 03/20/13 Page 3 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Court ruled as follows:

Finally, Plaintiffs request that the court enter an order requiring Attorney

Abbott to withdraw from this action. The court has reviewed the docket and

agrees with Plaintiffs that whether Attorney Abbott is Plaintiffs’ counsel of record

is unclear. The court’s proof of service and list of attorneys representing Plaintiffs

indicate Attorney Abbott is no longer Plaintiffs’ attorney and Plaintiffs are

appearing pro se. The court will issue an order confirming this.

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. The court’s August 11, 2011 order to show case is

DISCHARGED;

2. Plaintiffs’ request for permission to appeal the March 28, 2011

discovery order pursuant to Rule 54(b) is DENIED without

prejudice;

3. Any further motion that seeks the court’s permission to appeal

SHALL be filed within thirty days of this order’s date of service;

and

4. Attorney Abbott is no longer Plaintiffs’ attorney in this action and

Plaintiffs are currently proceeding pro se.

On November 28, 2011, Attorney Abbott, listing in the top right-hand corner of the

document that he is “Attorney for Plaintiffs”, filed an application for the Court to find a prior

order final pursuant to Rule 54(b). On December 5, 2011, the Court struck Attorney Abbott’s

November 28, 2011 filing because the Court had previously found, at Plaintiffs’ request, that

Attorney Abbott no longer represented Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs are proceeding in Pro Se. 

Plaintiffs never filed an application to substitute attorneys for Court records, and

Plaintiffs continue to represent themselves in Pro Se. Plaintiffs in Pro Se also did not file a

motion that sought the Court’s permission to appeal within thirty days of the Court’s October 31,

2011 order. On February 16, 2012, the Court issued an order for Plaintiffs to show cause why

this action should not dismissed for their failure to timely prosecute.

On February 29, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a response. Plaintiffs’ position was that since

Attorney Abbott had filed a motion on Plaintiffs behalf, the Court should have “known” Attorney

Abbott was again Plaintiffs’ attorney of record. Plaintiffs stated that neither “Plaintiffs nor

Attorney Abott were aware of any local rule of federal code that prohibited Attorney Abbott from

representing Plaintiffs and re-entering his appearance in this case by, at minimum, signing and e4

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 784 Filed 03/20/13 Page 4 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

filing Plaintiffs’ 54(b) application at docket number 776 . . . .” On July 5, 2012, the Court

issued a Minute Order that stated any formal substitution of counsel from Plaintiffs, currently in

Pro Se, must be filed with the Court within 10 days. No motion or request for substitution of

counsel was filed.

DISCUSSION

At this time, three motions are pending before the Court. In addition, given the long

delays in this action, the Court finds that, despite the Court’s overwhelming case load, this case

must proceed to trial. At this time, the court finds Plaintiffs’ pending motions should be denied 1

and the Court must set a trial date.

A. Plaintiff’s June 19, 2012 Response to the Court’s June 5, 2012 Minute Order and

Request to Accept Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appeal

On June 19, 2012, Plaintiffs, in Pro Se, filed a document entitled:

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO MINUTE ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 5, 2012

AT DOC 780; AND REQUEST FOR COURT RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’

JOINT RESPONSE AT DOC 779 RE: DISCHARGE OF ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE ENTERED ON FEBRUARY 16, 2012 INCLUDING FINDINGS OF

FACTS AND; REQUEST TO ACCEPT PLAINTIFFS REQUEST PURSUANT

TO F.R.C.P. RULE 54(B) REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ORDER

AND JUDGMENT AT DOC 559.

(Doc. #781). It appears this motion requests that the Court address the court’s February 16,

2012 order to show cause (Doc. #778) and grant any pending motion for certification of the

Court’s March 6, 2007 order granting Defendants’ motion to enforce the December 4, 2006 oral

 Out of fairness, the Court believes it is necessary to forewarn litigants that the Fresno 1

Division of the Eastern District of California now has the heaviest District Judge caseload in the

entire nation. While the Court will use its best efforts to resolve this case and all other civil

cases in a timely manner, the parties are admonished that not all of the parties’ needs and

expectations may be met as expeditiously as desired. As multiple trials are now being set to

begin upon the same date, parties may find their case trailing with little notice before the trial

begins. The law requires the Court give any criminal case priority over civil trials and other

matters, and the Court must proceed with criminal trials even if a civil trial is older or was set

earlier. 

The parties are reminded of the availability of a United States Magistrate Judge to

conduct all proceedings in this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 28 U.S.C. 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 73, and Local Rule 305. 

5

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 784 Filed 03/20/13 Page 5 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

stipulation (Doc. #559). 

Apparently, despite this Court’s citation of the Local Rules and the Court’s directions in

the Court’s October 31, 2011 Order Discharging the Court’s Order to Show Cause (Doc. #775),

the Court’s December 5, 2011 Order Striking the November 28, 2011 Application by Attorney

Abbott (#777), and the Court’s June 5, 2012 Minute Order informing Plaintiffs that any formal

substitution of counsel needed to be filed pursuant to the Local Rules, Plaintiffs have still

blatantly violated the Local Rules and this Court’s orders. Instead of merely filing an application

to allow the Attorney Abbott to be Plaintiffs’ attorney of record, Plaintiffs continue to inform the

Court that it should have “realized” Plaintiffs desired Attorney Abbott to represent them despite

their pleas in the September 30, 2011 motion (Doc. #774) for the Court to enter a formal order

finding Attorney Abbott no longer represented Plaintiffs. Thus, Plaintiffs will continue in Pro

Se in this action until a properly filed notice of substitution of counsel is filed.

To the extent Plaintiffs desire a formal order discharging any outstanding orders to show

cause, Plaintiffs request will be granted. To the extent Plaintiffs ask that the Court accept their

motion pursuant to Rule 54(b) to enter certification of a final order of judgment of Document

#559, this motion is denied. The November 29, 2011 application requesting the Court direct

entry of a prior order as final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) has been stricken because it was

filed by an attorney, who at Plaintiffs’ own specific request, was no longer representing

Plaintiffs. The Court cannot grant a stricken motion. To the extent Plaintiffs request their

previously filed Pro Se motion concerning an appeal be granted, this motion was denied by the

Court’s October 31, 2011 Order (Doc. #775). 

Thus, Plaintiff’s June 19, 2012 request (Doc. #781) is DENIED. 

B. November 7, 2012 Motion Requesting an Order Finding Document #559 Final For the

Purposes of Appeal

On November 7, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion in Pro Se requesting that the Court enter

an order finding Document Number #559 final for the purposes of appeal. It appears Plaintiffs

6

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 784 Filed 03/20/13 Page 6 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

are requesting a final judgment on the Court’s March 6, 2007 order granting Defendants’ motion

to enforce the stipulation and entering judgment in favor of certain Defendants and against all

Defendants on the fifth and sixth claims.

 It is difficult for the Court to determine if it has jurisdiction to even considering this

motion. Considering Attorney Abbott filed a similar motion and Plaintiffs continue to insist, in

some documents, that Attorney Abbott is representing them and they are not in Pro Se, the court

is unsure if Plaintiffs even desire a ruling on this motion. However, at this time, the Court has

found Plaintiffs are proceeding in Pro Se and Attorney Abbott is not representing them. As

such, the Court will consider Plaintiffs’ November 7, 2012 motion.

This motion must be denied. Preliminarily, the court notes that its October 31, 2011

order (Doc. #775) ordered Plaintiffs to file any motion seeking the Court’s permission to appeal

within thirty days. While Attorney Abbott did file a motion within thirty days, the Court had no

choice but to strike this motion because the Court had found, at Plaintiffs’ request, that Attorney

Abbott no longer represented Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs waited a year, until November 7, 2012, before

they, in Pro Se, filed a motion concerning appeal. Plaintiffs’ motion violates the Courts orders

and is untimely by eleven months. Thus, this motion can be denied on this ground alone.

Regardless, Plaintiffs do not meet the standard for the Court to enter judgment pursuant

to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Normally, a final judgment is not entered

in an action until all claims have been resolved. However, Rule 54(b) allows for the entry of

final judgment with respect to less than all parties or claims in an action if the Court makes “an

express determination that there is no just reason for delay” and expressly directs “entry of

judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Rule 54(b) provides:

b) Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When an action

presents more than one claim for relief—whether as a claim, counterclaim,

crossclaim, or third-party claim—or when multiple parties are involved, the court

may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims

or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for

delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that

adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all

the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be

7

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 784 Filed 03/20/13 Page 7 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and

all the parties’ rights and liabilities.

In making a determination under Rule 54(b), the court must first determine that it is

dealing with a final judgment, which means a decision that is “an ultimate disposition of an

individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v.

General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980). Here, final judgments have been issued as to: 

a. Victor McCluen and Lend-Teck Financial Inc. on the remaining claims in

the second amended complaint

b. Dolly Willms individually on the remaining claims in the second amended

complaint

c. The fifth and sixth claims for relief in the second amended complaint.

As the court’s March 6, 2007 order (Doc. #559) resolved all claims against Victor McCluen,

Lend-Teck Financial Inc., Dolly Williams individually, and the fifth and sixth claims for relief

against all Defendants, the court’s order may be considered a final judgment.

The issue is whether there is “no just reason for any delay” in entering judgment and

allowing an appeal of this order. A Rule 54(b) certification is proper if it will aid “expeditious

decision” of the case, but the court must remember the policy of preventing piecemeal appeals in

cases that should be reviewed on appeal as a single unit. Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794,

797-98 (9 Cir. 1991); McIntyre v. United States, 789 F.2d 1408, 1410 (9 Cir.1986). The Ninth th th

Circuit has stated that the appropriate focus for a court’s Rule 54(b) decision is a “pragmatic

approach” with focus “on severability and efficient judicial administration.” S.E.C. v. Platforms

Wireless Intern. Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1084 (9 Cir. 2010); Continental Airlines, Inc. v. th

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 819 F.2d 1519, 1525 (9 Cir.1987). “Judgments under Rule 54(b) th

must be reserved for the unusual case in which the costs and risks of multiplying the number of

proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket are outbalanced by pressing needs of the

litigants for an early and separate judgment as to some claims or parties.” Morrison-Knudsen

8

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 784 Filed 03/20/13 Page 8 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Co., Inc. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9 Cir. 1981). th

Delay in an action is a factor this Court may consider in determining whether there is “no

just reason to delay” when ruling on a Rule 54(b) motion. See Lowery v. Federal Exp. Corp., 426

F.3d 817, 821-22 (6 Cir. 2005); Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 882-83 (9 Cir. th th

2005). As explained by the Ninth Circuit:

Duplication of proceedings and overall delay in final disposition of the action

implicate sound judicial administration. The first of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure mandates construing the rest of the rules ‘to secure the just, speedy, and

inexpensive determination of every action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 1. The reality is that if

this case had gone to trial in the ordinary course, it would long since have been

over and done with. 

Wood, 422 at 882-83. The Court recognizes that the Court’s own overwhelming docket has

caused delays in this action. However, Plaintiffs’ chosen tactics and conduct have caused most

of the delay. The court recognizes that some of Plaintiffs’ delay can be attributed to Plaintiffs’

changes in attorneys, Plaintiffs representing themselves in Pro Se, and Plaintiffs’ general need to

learn basic court procedures. However, this case has been pending since 2002. The order

Plaintiffs wish to appeal was filed on March 6, 2007 – six years ago. Even given this Court’s

extraordinarily large docket, the informal stay, and Plaintiffs’ difficulties in litigating this matter,

this is an incredibly long period of time. There is simply no just reason to delay this case even

further with an appeal. In fact, there is every reason not to delay any longer. 

The Court also finds little likelihood that Plaintiffs’ potential appeal will be successful

and result in some Defendants and/or claims being added back into this action. Judgement was

entered as a result of a stipulation, not because of a legal finding on which reasonable jurists

could disagree. This Court had no choice but to enter an order granting judgment on these claims

based on Plaintiffs’ sanctioned failure to acknowledge their own binding agreement. The only

potential issue regarding these claims on appeal is if this Court somehow erred by enforcing

Plaintiffs’ own agreement. The Court finds that any factual dispute surrounding the Court’s

enforcement of the agreement cannot be appealed in good faith. 

9

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 784 Filed 03/20/13 Page 9 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The court cannot find that this case represents the unusual case in which the costs and

risks of multiplying the number of proceedings and overcrowding the appellate docket are

outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants for an early and separate judgment as to some

claims. See Frank Briscoe Co., Inc. v. Morrison–Knudsen Co., Inc., 776 F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th

Cir. 1985). Thus, Plaintiffs’ November 7, 2012 motion requesting Document #559 be made final

for the purposes of appeal must be denied.

C. Request for the Court to Discharge Order to Show Cause

On November 7, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a joint status report and a request for the court to

discharge the order to show cause entered on February 16, 2012 (Doc. #783). As discussed

above, the court will discharge any outstanding order to show cause. The rest of Plaintiffs’

November 7, 2012 document refers to Plaintiffs’ requests for a final judgment on Document 559. 

 Any such request is discussed above, and it has been denied. Thus, to the extent the November

7, 2012 request constitutes a pending motion, it can be denied as moot in light of the court’s

other orders.

D. Trial Date and Further Proceedings

This matter has been pending since 2002. All outstanding motions have been resolved

and all discovery deadlines and dispositive motion deadlines have long passed. There is nothing

left to do but for the court to set this matter for trial. The court will set this action for trial on

November 5, 2013.

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Any outstanding order for Plaintiffs to show cause is DISCHARGED.

2. Plaintiffs’ June 19, 2012 request (Doc. #781) is DENIED. 

3. Plaintiffs’ November 7, 2012 motion requesting Document #559 be made final for

the purposes of appeal (Doc. #782) is DENIED.

4. Plaintiff’s November 7, 20012 request (Doc. #783) is DENIED as moot.

10

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 784 Filed 03/20/13 Page 10 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5. The court sets the following pretrial and trial dates:

a. Amended Pretrial Statement Due: September 6, 2013

b. Pretrial Conference: September 20, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.

c. Trial: November 5, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.

6. The parties are reminded that failure to comply with this order may result in

sanctions, including dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 20, 2013 

0m8i78 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

11

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 784 Filed 03/20/13 Page 11 of 11