IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MARY WICKENKAMP 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HOSTETTER LAW GROUP, LLP, HOSTETTER 

KNAPP LLP, D. ZACHARY HOSTETTER, D. 

RAHN HOSTETTER, BRUCE HAMPTON, 

VENESE HAMPTON, KEVIN SAU, DA YID 

ANGELI, REBECCA KNAPP, BENJAMIN N. 

SOUEDE, SCOTT HAMPTON, and ANGELI 

LAW GROUP, 

Defendants. 

P APAK, Magistrate Judge: 

2:15-CV-296-PK 

OPNION AND 

ORDER 

Plaintiff pro se Mmy Wickenkamp filed this action against the Hostetter Law Group, LLP 

("HLG"), Hostetter Knapp LLP ("HK"), D. Zachary Hostetter ("Zachmy"), D. Rahn Hostetter 

("Rahn" and, collectively with Zachmy, the "Hostetters"), Bruce Hampton ("Bruce"), Venese 

Hampton ("Venese"), Kevin Sali, and David Angeli on Februmy 19, 2015. Wickenkamp 

amended her complaint effective April 10, 2015, adding as additional defendants Rebecca 

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 2:15-cv-00296-PK Document 132 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 5
Knapp, Benjamin N. Souede, Marilyn Preston Suarez ("Marilyn"), Efrain Suarez ("Efrain" and, 

collectively with Marilyn, the "Suarezes"), and the American Bank of Missouri ("ABM"). 

Wickenkamp amended her complaint a second time on May 4, 2015. 

On December 3, 2015, I recommended that all of Wickenkamp's claims be dismissed, 

certain of them with prejudice and certain of them without, and further recommended both that 

Wickenkamp be directed to amend her pleading as to any of her claims as to which she believed 

the identified deficiencies were subject to cure by amendment to restate those claims in a manner 

compliant with Rule 8 and all other applicable pleading requirements within thitty days and to 

effect service on any defendant named in any such restated claim who had not yet been served 

with process herein within thitty days after filing such third amended complaint and that 

Wickenkamp be advised (i) that should she fail to comply with Rule 8 or other applicable 

pleading requirements in drafting her third amended complaint, any claims alleged in a 

noncompliant manner would be subject to dismissal with prejudice, and (ii) that should she fail 

to serve any named defendant with process within the prescribed time period, her claims would 

be subject to dismissal with prejudice to the extent alleged against any unserved defendant. On 

Januaiy 31, 2016, Judge Hemandez adopted my recommendations without modification. 

On March 2, 2016, Wickenkamp moved for extension of time within which to file her 

contemplated third amended complaint to March 7, 2016, and on March 7, 2016, she filed her 

third amended complaint, abandoning her claims to the extent alleged against the Suarezes and 

ABM, and adding as new defendants Scott Hampton ("Scott" and, collectively with Bruce and 

Vanese, the"Hamptons") and the Angeli Law Group ("ALG" and, collectively with Angeli, Sali, 

and Souede, the "ALG defendants"). By and through her third amended complaint, Wickenkamp 

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 2:15-cv-00296-PK Document 132 Filed 07/14/16 Page 2 of 5
alleges (i) the liability of defendants Bruce, Vanese, Knapp, Zachary, HK, HLG, and the ALG 

defendants under Oregon common law for invasion of privacy by false light arising out of 

allegations made by Bruce and Vanese by and through Knapp, Zachary, HK, HLG, and the ALG 

defendants in their capacities as Bruce and Vanese's legal representatives in the course of 

litigation against various third pmiies to this lawsuit, and (ii) the liability of the Hamptons, 

Knapp, the Hostetters, HK, and HLG under Oregon common law for invasion of privacy by 

intrusion upon seclusion arising out of those defendants' conduct in recording telephone 

conversations between plaintiff and her husband. Wickenkamp seeks award of economic, 

non-economic, and punitive damages in unspecified amounts. On April 5, 2016, I granted 

Wickenkamp's motion for extension of time nunc pro tune and deemed her third amended 

complaint timely filed as of March 7; 2016. 

Zachary and HLG moved to dismiss Wickenkamp's claims as set forth in her third 

amended complaint on April 6, 2016, and Angeli and Sali moved to dismiss Wickenkamp's 

claims against them on April 11, 2016. On April 19, 2016, Wickenkamp requested a 

fourteen-day extension of the time for filing her response to the two pending motions to dismiss 

her claims, and on April 20, 2016, I granted her motion, directing her to file her responsive 

briefing by not later than May 9, 2016. On May 9, 2016, rather than file responsive briefing, 

Wickenkamp moved the co mi for fmiher extension of the time for filing her responses to the 

pending dismissal motions to May 11, 2016 (inaccurately characterizing her motion as 

unopposed). On May 10, 2016, I granted Wickenkamp's motion for further extension of the 

deadline, directing her to file her responsive briefing by not later than May 11, 2016, and 

expressly advising Wickenkamp and the other parties that "[n]o fmiher extensions to the 

Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 2:15-cv-00296-PK Document 132 Filed 07/14/16 Page 3 of 5
dismissal motions briefing schedule w[ ould] be allowed." On May 11, 2016, rather than file 

responsive briefing, Wickenkamp moved the court for yet futiher extension of the time for filing 

her response to the pending dismissal motions to May 16, 2016. Notwithstanding my previous 

notice to the patiies that the briefing schedule would not be fmiher extended, I granted the 

motion in part and extended Wickenkamp's responsive briefing deadline to May 13, 2016, 

emphasizing that "Plaintiffs responses to all dismissal motions must be filed no later than 

5/13/2016" (emphasis original) and expressly reiterating that "The court will not entetiain any 

futiher extension requests or late submissions." Wickenkamp did not file responsive briefing by 

May 13, 2016, as ordered, but rather delayed until May 19, 2016 and May 22, 2016, before filing 

such briefing, moving (#99, 112) that her responsive briefing be deemed timely filed nune pro 

tune. On May 25, 2016, I denied Wickenkamp's motions to deem her responsive briefing timely 

filed. 

Notwithstanding the denial ofWickenkamp's motions that her responsive briefing be 

deemed timely filed, on May 27, 2016, both Zachary and HLG and Angeli and Sali filed reply 

memoranda in suppoti of their respective motions. 

I now reconsider sua sponte my order (#124) dated May 25, 2016. In light of the fact that 

the moving defendants filed reply memoranda in suppoti of their pending motions to dismiss, 

and in the interest of ensuring that Wickenkamp be heard prior to disposition of those motions, it 

would by just to deem Wickenkamp's responsive briefing (and associated evidence) timely filed. 

I therefore reverse that order, and grant each ofWickenkamp's motions (#99, 112) that her 

briefing be deemed timely filed nune pro tune. In consequence, Wickenkamp's responsive 

briefing (#105, 113) and associated evidence (#104, 120, 121) are deemed timely and may be 

Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 2:15-cv-00296-PK Document 132 Filed 07/14/16 Page 4 of 5
considered by the court in connection with the pending dispositive motions. The court may 

likewise properly consider the moving defendants' reply memoranda (#125, 126). 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, I reverse my order (#124) dated May 25, 2016, and 

Wickenkamp's motions (#99, 112) that her briefing be deemed timely filed nunc pro tune are 

granted. 

Dated this 14th day of July, 2016. 

Honorable Paul Papak 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Page 5 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 2:15-cv-00296-PK Document 132 Filed 07/14/16 Page 5 of 5