Opinion
Civil Action 1:22-cv-02242-CNS-NRN
01-20-2023
ERIC WITT, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF COLORADO, DAVID R. DOUGHTY Attorney, TERI VASQUEZ Judge, and JANEWAY LAW FIRM P.C., Defendants.
ORDER
CHARLOTTE N. SWEENEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Objection to United States Magistrate Judge Neureiter's Minute Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. (ECF Nos. 19, 21, 24). As set forth below, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, and Magistrate Judge Neureiter's Order is AFFIRMED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, pro se, filed a motion to strike Defendant Doughty's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16) because counsel failed to include the “primary CM/ECF e-mail address of the attorney on the motion to dismiss document as required by Attorney local rule D.C.COLO.LattyR 5(a)(3)(B).” (ECF No. 19, p. 2). Plaintiff's main argument is that because Defendant Doughty's email address was missing from his signature block, he was not in “good standing to appear at the bar of this court.” (Id.). Plaintiff further argues that because Defendant Doughty is allegedly not in good standing, he cannot represent Defendant Janeway Law Firm P.C. and therefore the law firm was a corporation appearing without counsel. Therefore, per Plaintiff's logic, the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant should be stricken. (Id., p. 4). The Magistrate Judge determined that, while Defendant Doughty's signature block did not strictly comply with D.C.COLO.LattyR 5(a)(3)(B), the error could be remedied by filing a proper entry of appearance instead of striking the motion. (ECF No. 21). On December 16, 2022, David Doughty filed an entry of appearance certifying that he is a member in good standing of the bar of the District Court of Colorado and was appearing in the case as counsel for Janeway Law Firm, P.C. and himself. (ECF No. 22).
Plaintiff objects, arguing that (1) the Magistrate Judge failed to address the “violation of local rule 5(b)” regarding the issue of self-representation by a corporation and (2) Defendant Doughty “is a layman” to the federal court and “waived contesting jurisdictional rights” and therefore cannot represent Janeway Law Firm, P.C. or appear pro se. (ECF No. 24, pp. 1-2).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion to strike is a non-dispositive motion. A magistrate judge's order on such a motion will be affirmed unless it is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); Allen v. Sybase, Inc., 468 F.3d 642, 658 (10th Cir. 2006). Under the clearly erroneous standard, the magistrate judge's order will be affirmed unless, upon review of the evidence, this Court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Allen, 468 F.3d at 658. “[M]ere disagreement with [a] Magistrate Judge['s] recommendation does not make the recommendation incorrect or outside the bounds of his authority.” Rader v. United States, No. 08-cv-00568-WDM-MEH, 2008 WL 4949168, at *3 (D. Colo. Nov. 17, 2008).
III. ANALYSIS
The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge did not clearly err in denying Plaintiff's motion to strike. While the Court appreciates Plaintiff's close attention to detail in Defendant Doughty's signature block and the Court's local rules, Plaintiff is incorrect that a missing email address strips Defendant Doughty of his ability to represent clients before this Court. Defendant Doughty's noncompliance with D.C.COLO.LattyR 5(a)(3)(B) was harmless and the error was remedied by filing a proper entry of appearance. Defendant Janeway Law Firm P.C. has counsel and continues to be represented by an attorney; thus Plaintiff's arguments regarding this issue are unavailing.
Regardless, even if this Court granted Plaintiff's motion to strike the motion to dismiss for lack of compliance with D.C.COLO.LattyR 5(a)(3)(B), Defendants would still be able to refile the motion. The Magistrate Judge did not clearly err in concluding that filing an entry of appearance by Defendant Doughty would remedy the issue.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Magistrate Judge's Order (ECF No. 21) is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff's Objection (ECF No. 24) is OVERRULED.