Freeze v. Gallagher

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 ERIC STEPHEN FREEZE, CASE NO. C23-1135JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. ELIZABETH E. GALLAGHER, et al., Defendants.

Before the court is Plaintiff Eric Stephen Freeze’s motion to strike (1) the notice of appearance filed by Paul W. Taylor, counsel for Defendants Elizabeth E. Gallagher, Ann G. Freeze Revocable Trust, Ronald L. Freeze Revocable Trust, James Massingale, and Angela Massingale (together, “Defendants”) and (2) Defendants’ answer to Mr. Freeze’s amended complaint. (Mot. (Dkt. # 26); see also NOA (Dkt. # 8); Ans. (Dkt. # 9).) As he did in his earlier motion to disqualify (see Mot. to Disqualify (Dkt. # 19)), Mr. Freeze argues that the court must disqualify Mr. Taylor from representing Defendants because Mr. Taylor “has been implicated in a capacity where he is likely to be a necessary witness” in this matter (Mot. at 2). Mr. Freeze further asserts that Mr. Taylor has “default[ed] on the matter” by failing to respond to the motion to disqualify and that, as a result, Mr. Taylor’s notice of appearance and the answer Mr. Taylor filed on behalf of Defendants “are invalid” and must be “stricken from the record.” (Id. at 2-3.)

6 On February 20, 2024, the court denied Mr. Freeze’s motion to disqualify Mr. Taylor because Mr. Freeze had not “identified any facts that would justify a finding that Mr. Taylor is likely to be a necessary witness if this action goes to trial.” (2/20/24 Order (Dkt. # 23) at 3-4.) So too here. Mr. Taylor’s knowledge about the facts underlying this case obtained during his representation of some of the Defendants in an earlier case does not, without more, make him a necessary witness in this matter. (See id.) Thus, as it did in its February 20, 2024 order, the court finds nothing in the record that would lead to the conclusion that Mr. Taylor’s representation of Defendants in this matter is unethical.

14 Accordingly, the court DENIES Mr. Freeze’s motion to strike (Dkt. # 26). Mr. Freeze is warned that the filing of further unfounded motions to disqualify Mr. Taylor may result in the imposition of sanctions. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 11(c) (providing that an attorney or party who presents unnecessary motions or otherwise multiplies or obstructs the proceedings in a case may be subject to sanctions); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; see Est. of Blue v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 120 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides for the imposition of sanctions when a filing is frivolous, legally unreasonable, or without factual foundation, or is brought for an improper purpose.”).

1 The court acknowledges, however, that Mr. Freeze is correct that Mr. Taylor did not respond to Mr. Freeze’s motion to disqualify and motion to strike—both of which directly challenge Mr. Taylor’s own participation in this matter. (See Mot. at 2; see generally Dkt.) The court reminds Mr. Taylor that, under this District’s Local Civil Rules, if a party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, the court may consider that failure as an admission that the unopposed motion has merit. See Local Rules W.D.

7 Wash. LCR 7(b)(2). Thus, Mr. Taylor and Defendants are warned that they must respond to any motion that they oppose in order to avoid the inference that they concede the motion’s merit.

10 Dated this 8th day of March, 2024.

A 13 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge