Free Motion for Hearing or Conference - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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

L AW OF F I C E S M O H R , H A C K E T T, P E D E R S O N , B L A K L E Y & R A N D O L P H , P . C .
2800 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1100 P H O E N I X , A R I Z O N A 8 5 0 0 4 -1 0 4 3 T E L E P H O N E ( 6 0 2 ) 2 4 0 -3 0 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 6 0 2 ) 2 4 0 -6 6 0 0 (AZ BAR FIRM NO. 0046600)

Robert C. Hackett (AZ Bar No. 001588) ([email protected]) Daniel P. Beeks (AZ Bar No. 012628) ([email protected])

Attorneys for Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sybol Terrell-Sims, a married woman,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) American Express Company, (MetLife), ) a New York Corporation, and ) ) Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., a ) Tennesssee Company, ) ) Defendant. ) )

No. CV 03-1340 PHX SRB DEFENDANT METLIFE'S MOTION FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND OBJECTION TO MOTION TO REPRESENT PLAINTIFF

Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife") requests that this Court set a scheduling conference to discuss appropriate deadlines in light of the withdrawal of Plaintiff's second attorney. MetLife also objects to the "Motion to

Represent Plaintiff" filed by plaintiff's husband, Michael W. Sims ("Husband").1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Pursuant to an October 7, 2005 order of this Court, MetLife submitted a status report to this court on October 18, 2005 ("the Status Report"). In the Status Report, MetLife attempted to summarize the developments in this case since the parties had
1

Although this motion was mailed to MetLife's attorneys on or about November 1, 2005, it is not listed on the ECF docket. MetLife has attached a copy of this motion as Exhibit "A." Case 2:03-cv-01340-SRB
398893.1\15987-021

Document 64 1 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 1 of 3

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

stipulated to stay the litigation against MetLife pending MetLife's consideration of Plaintiff's administrative appeal of the denial of her disability benefits. One of those developments was the withdrawal of Plaintiff's second attorney. MetLife further

attempted to describe what it saw as the remaining issues in the litigation, and suggested various proposed deadlines for discovery and briefing necessary to resolve this case. On November 1, 2005, Husband filed a motion seeking permission to represent Plaintiff in all legal issues relating to this dispute. MetLife objects to Husband

representing Plaintiff in this litigation, because Husband is not an attorney. Objection to Husband Representing Plaintiff in this Litigation Husband is not a named party in this litigation. The only listed plaintiff is Sybol Terrell-Sims. Husband also is not a licensed attorney. Rule 83.1(b), Local Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that "only members of the bar of this Court shall practice in this District." Non-attorney family members are not allowed to represent parties in litigation. See, e.g., Murungi v. Mercedes Benz Credit Corp., 192 F. Supp. 2d 71, 74 (W.D.N.Y. 2001) (refusing to allow husband to represent wife in litigation, because it would "sanction the unauthorized practice of law"); Byers-Watts v. Parker, 199 Ariz. 466, 469-70, 18 P.3d 1265, 1268-69 (App. 2001) (non-attorney parent is not authorized to represent minor child in litigation). There is no showing that Husband has been appointed legal guardian of plaintiff, or that plaintiff is unable to represent herself in this litigation. If Plaintiff chooses to proceed without an attorney, she needs to represent herself. For these reasons, MetLife requests that the Court deny Husband's motion to represent Plaintiff. Request for Scheduling Conference In the Status Report, MetLife suggested that the Court should issue an order providing for certain deadlines for retaining new counsel, completing discovery, and briefing the merits of this case.

Case 2:03-cv-01340-SRB

398893.1\15987-021

Document 64 2 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 2 of 3

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

Although Husband stated that Plaintiff agreed with the proposed deadlines, Plaintiff may have been under the impression that husband would be allowed to represent her when she agreed to the proposed schedule. MetLife believes that the most prudent course would be to inform Plaintiff that Husband cannot represent her, allow Plaintiff a few weeks to find new counsel, and then set a scheduling conference to discuss appropriate deadlines for discovery and briefing. DATED: November 17, 2005 MOHR, HACKETT, PEDERSON, BLAKLEY & RANDOLPH, P.C. By /s/ Daniel P. Beeks Robert C. Hackett Daniel P. Beeks Suite 1100 2800 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004-1043 Attorneys for Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company COPIES of the foregoing mailed November 17, 2005 to: The Honorable Susan R. Bolton United States District Court of Ar izona 401 West Washington, SPC 50 Phoenix, AZ 85003-0001 Sybol Terrell-Sims P.O. Box 93428 Phoenix, Arizona 85070 Plaintiff

/s/ Daniel P. Beeks

Case 2:03-cv-01340-SRB

398893.1\15987-021

Document 64 3 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 3 of 3