Regardless whether this question should be decided under Texas law (where Parker filed suit) or Connecticut law (where DeFrancisco and her law firm office), DeFrancisco is entitled to this relief. DeFrancisco also moves to assert an attorney’s lien against the settlement proceeds in accordance with the Auglegal services agreement that Parker signed when she retained Lemberg Law as her counsel. The court grants Parker’s motion to remove attorney of record and DeFrancisco’s motion to withdraw as counsel.
II The court turns first to Parker’s motion to remove attorney of record and DeFrancisco’s motion to withdraw as counsel and assert attorney’s lien. 2- are now before the court for decision. Because Parker is appealing an unappealable order, the appeal does not deprive this court of subject matter jurisdiction to enter today’s rulings or judgment.
Exeter finance settlement pro#
The instant motions have been filed by Parker pro se, DeFrancisco, and Exeter and 2 After the court denied Parker’s pro se motion for a default judgment, she filed a pro se notice of appeal, and the appeal has been docketed in the Fifth Circuit. The court stated that it would not consider any of her pro se filings until she had clearly and unequivocally discharged DeFrancisco and Lemberg Law as her counsel. On Parker filed several pro se motions-which the court treated as motions to remove her counsel, reopen the case, and set it for trial, and for a default judgment-challenging the purported settlement.2 The court denied the motions, principally because it declined in its discretion to permit Parker to proceed pro se while simultaneously being represented by retained counsel. The court closed the case administratively for statistical purposes based on the announced settlement. After Exeter was served, but before it filed a responsive pleading, Parker, through her counsel, notified the court on Apthat the case had settled. Exeter is alleged to have an address in Irving, Texas. DeFrancisco and Lemberg Law office in Connecticut. I Parker, represented by DeFrancisco and the Lemberg Law LLC law firm (“Lemberg Law”), filed suit against Exeter in this court in November 2014 seeking to recover for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. The court enforces the settlement agreement, enters a final judgment dismissing this lawsuit, and decides the other motions as set out below.1 1 Under § 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002 and the definition of “written opinion” adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, this is a “written opinion issued by the court” because it “sets forth a reasoned explanation for court’s decision.” It has been written, however, primarily for the parties, to decide issues presented in this case, and not for publication in an official reporter, and should be understood accordingly. 3:14-CV-4007-D § § § § § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this action by plaintiff Patricia Parker (“Parker”) against defendant Exeter Finance Corporation (“Exeter”)-in which Parker, through her counsel, filed an Apnotice of settlement-the following six motions are pending: (1) Parker’s pro se motion to withdraw all settlement offers (2) Parker’s pro se motion to remove attorney of record (3) Exeter’s motion to enforce settlement agreement (4) the motion of Jenny DeFrancisco, Esquire (“DeFrancisco”) to withdraw as counsel and assert attorney’s lien (5) Parker’s pro se application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs and (6) Parker’s pro se motion for the appointment of counsel. 39 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION PATRICIA PARKER, Plaintiff, VS.
0 kommentar(er)
