Opinion
Civil Action 4:22-cv-3396
07-24-2023
JOSHUA MARBLEY, Plaintiff, v. TEAMSTER LOCAL 988, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Andrew S. Hanen, United States District Judge.
Pending before the Court are 27 motions by the parties, that the Court hereby addresses in this Order:
1. Plaintiffs Motions pertaining to objections for this case to be heard by Magistrate Judge Sam Sheldon (Doc. Nos. 12, 25);
2. First Motions to Dismiss from defendants Michael Honer, Rhonda Russel, Shebrenna Tangarife, and Teamster Local 988 (collectively, “Defendants”) (Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 20);
3. Plaintiffs Motions of Constitutionality for Jurisdiction of the Court (Doc. Nos. 23, 26, 27);
4. Plaintiffs Motion for Hearing to Challenge Constitutionality of Defendant's Answer (Doc. No. 30);
5. Plaintiffs Error in Filing Motions (Doc. No. 43);
6. Plaintiffs Motion for Trial by Jury (Doc. No. 45);
7. Plaintiffs Motion for No New Parties (Doc. No. 46);
8. Plaintiffs Motions for Default Judgment Against Teamster Local 988, Michael Offord, Michael Honer, Rhonda Russel, and Shebrenna Tangarife (Doc. Nos. 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 58);
9. Plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 55);
10. Defendants Michael Honer, Rhonda Russell, Shebrenna Tangarife, and Teamster Local 988's Motions to Strike Plaintiffs Amended Complaint at Docket Entry 54 (Doc. Nos. 59, 60, 61, 63);
11. Plaintiffs Motions to Challenge Constitutionality of Def s Answer Hearing (Doc. Nos. 68, 75);
12. Plaintiffs Motion for Recusal (Doc. No. 77); and
13. Plaintiffs Motion to Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Doc. No. 78).
Given that the Defendants have filed Motions to Dismiss in response to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 54), this Court retroactively grants leave for it to be filed and hereby finds that the Second Amended Complaint is the live, operative pleading in the case. Accordingly, all of Defendants' Motions to Strike (Doc. Nos. 59, 60, 61, 63) are DENIED and Defendants' First Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 20) are DENIED as moot. The Court will address the merits of Defendants' Second [set of] Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 64, 65, 67, 69,72,76) in response to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 54) in a separate order.
Plaintiffs Motions objecting for this case to be heard by Magistrate Judge Sam Sheldon (Doc. Nos. 12, 25) are GRANTED and this Court will rule on all of the pending motions and will not refer this case to Judge Sheldon.
Plaintiffs Motions of Constitutionality for Jurisdiction of the Court request Defendants' counsels' “Oath of Office, Bond Number, Bar Number, License Number, Bar Membership Card, Bond Information.” (Doc. Nos. 23, 26, 27) are DENIED. This information is not relevant to the claims in this case and counsel for Defendants are not required to provide this information to Plaintiff.
Defendants Teamster Local, Michael Offbrd, Michael Honer, Rhonda Russel, and Shebrenna Tangarife have properly and sufficiently appeared and responded to the lawsuit. All of these Defendants also responded to Plaintiffs various Motions for Default Judgment against them. (Doc. Nos. 52, 53). Therefore, Plaintiffs Motions for Default Judgment against Teamster Local 988, Michael Offbrd, Michael Honer, Rhonda Russel, and Shebrenna Tangarife (Doc. Nos. 47,48, 49, 50, 51, 58) are DENIED.
Plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 55) requests this Court to bar counsel for Defendants. Plaintiff has not stated a factual or legal basis for such a basis. Accordingly, this Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff has also stated no substantive basis for requesting recusal, nor does this Court sua sponte find any basis to do so. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Recusal (Doc. No. 77) and Motion to Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding recusal (Doc. No. 78) are DENIED. That issue may be raised when the entire case is appealed.
Plaintiffs Motion for a Jury Trial is hereby GRANTED. (Doc. No. 45).
Plaintiffs Motion for Hearing (Doc. No. 30), Plaintiffs Error in Filing Motions (Doc. No. 43), Plaintiffs Motion for No New Parties (Doc. No. 46), and Plaintiffs Motions to Challenge Constitutionality of (sic) Answer Hearing (Doc. No. 68, 75) are DENIED.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Motion for a Jury Trial and objections to a referral to the Magistrate Court are hereby GRANTED. (Doc. Nos. 12,25,45). All other motions discussed in this Order are hereby DENIED. (Doc. Nos. 18, 19,20,23,26,27, 30,43,45-51,55, 58, 59-61, 63, 68, 75, 77, 78).