Fletcher v. Hoeppner Wagner & Evans
2:14-cv-00231
N.D. Ind.Apr 27, 2017Background
- Paul Fletcher (pro se) sued Hoeppner Wagner & Evans, LLP (HWE) and Wayne Golomb for legal malpractice arising from an earlier underlying lawsuit.
- Fletcher previously filed a related suit in the Southern District of Indiana (Alerding Castor Hewitt v. Fletcher), removed from state court, which includes counterclaims for malpractice and a fee dispute.
- Fletcher sought consolidation of the Southern District case with this Northern District action; the magistrate denied consolidation because courts cannot consolidate across districts and instructed Fletcher to seek transfer.
- Fletcher filed a Motion to Transfer the Southern District case (pending and opposed); he then moved in this Northern District action to stay proceedings pending that transfer and to have the court source/appoint a malpractice expert.
- Discovery in the Northern District case closed October 28, 2016; expert disclosure deadline was December 16, 2016; HWE served expert disclosures March 17, 2017.
- The court denied the stay and denied Fletcher’s request for a court-sourced expert, and granted Golomb’s motion to join HWE’s response.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to stay pending transfer/consolidation of related Southern District case | Stay to avoid duplicative proceedings, inconsistent rulings, conserve resources, and allow single malpractice expert | Stay would prejudice defendants, case here is advanced (discovery closed), issues/defendants differ, transfer is uncertain | Denied: stay would unduly prejudice defendants, not simplify issues or reduce burden |
| Request for court-sourced / appointed legal malpractice expert | Fletcher cannot find an expert willing to work for him and asks court assistance/appointment | Untimely and court should not act as advocate for pro se litigant; expert deadline passed | Denied: untimely and court will not appoint or recommend an expert |
Key Cases Cited
- Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (stay power incidental to court's docket-management authority)
- Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 760 (stay requires balancing competing interests)
- Tex. Indep. Producers & Royalty Owners Ass'n v. EPA, 410 F.3d 964 (7th Cir.) (discussing standards for judicial stays)
- Donald v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 95 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 1996) (court will not act as advocate for pro se litigants)