Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-2603-CM
June 24, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff initially filed this action pro se. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's claims. Before plaintiff's response time expired, Dennis Egan of the Popham Law Firm filed an entry of appearance on behalf of plaintiff and requested an extension of time in which to respond to defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant objects to the entry of appearance of Dennis Egan. This matter is before the court on Popham Law Firm's Entry of Appearance; and Request for Extension of Time to Consider and Respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, to Strike Class Allegations, and Consolidate (Doc. 4).
The reason for defendant's objection to Denis Egan's representation of plaintiff involves another case pending in this jurisdiction entitled Hammond v. City of Junction City, Kansas, et al., Case No. 00-2146. Hammond is an employment discrimination case brought by a plaintiff, Marcus Hammond, on behalf of himself and other African-American employees of the City of Junction City (the City). In that case, the law firm of Anderson Associates, LLC, plaintiffs' counsel, was disqualified from representing the plaintiff or "any class of individuals in any other action based on the class allegations asserted in [that] case." (Memorandum and Order, July 10, 2001, at 39). In that order, Magistrate Judge Waxse determined that Anderson Associates, LLC engaged in improper ex parte communications with Al Hope, the Director of Human Resources for the City. Magistrate Waxse also prohibited Anderson Associates, LLC from disclosing any of the information or documents gained through the improper ex parte communications.
Al Hope is the plaintiff in this case, and the improper communication occurred prior to the instant case being filed.
Anderson Associates, LLC appealed Magistrate Judge Waxse's Order to District Judge Lungstrum. Dennis Egan, on behalf of the National Employment Lawyer's Association, filed an amicus brief opposing the disqualification. The City represents that it does not know what communications Mr. Egan had with Anderson Associates, LLC prior to his filing the amicus brief in the Hammond case. However, the City expresses its concern about whether improper disclosures of information were made to Mr. Egan. This is the basis upon which the City objects to Mr. Egan's entry of appearance in this case.
The court finds that the City has failed to make a showing that Mr. Egan received any improper information from Anderson Associates, LLC. Without any evidence to the contrary, the court will presume that Anderson Associates, LLC has followed Magistrate Judge Waxe's order prohibiting disclosure. Moreover, the City states that, during a recent telephone conversation with its counsel, Mr. Egan indicated that, in preparation of the amicus brief, he reviewed the pleadings in Hammond. Mr. Egan did not mention any communications with Anderson Associates, LLC. Finally, Mr. Egan represents in his reply brief that he has gained his information regarding Al Hope's claims only from Mr. Hope himself. Thus, at this time, the court finds no basis upon which to deny Mr. Egan's entry of appearance on behalf of Al Hope.
With respect to plaintiff's request for an extension of time, the court notes that it previously granted plaintiff an extension and that plaintiff at this juncture already has filed a response to defendant's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, that issue is moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Popham Law Firm's Entry of Appearance; and Request for Extension of Time to Consider and Respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, to Strike Class Allegations, and Consolidate (Doc. 4) is granted in part and is moot in part. Specifically, plaintiff's request that Dennis Egan appear on his behalf is granted, and plaintiff's request for an extension of time is moot.