24-CV-1034 - Trial - Jefferson vs City of Los Santos, et al.

[nfr.ai]

Superior Court of Los Santos

County of Los Santos

Civil Division

Case No: 24-CV-1034

Case Name: Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department

 

Plaintiff’s Brief on the Use of AI in Legal Filings

 

Your Honor,

 

I, Xavier Castenda, counsel for the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, respectfully submit this brief in response to the Court’s order to address the use of artificial intelligence  in the preparation of legal documents.

 

1. Nature of AI Assistance

The AI tools utilized in this case served as drafting aids and not as replacements for professional judgment. Specifically:

 

Drafting Support: The AI was employed to assist in drafting initial versions of legal documents, including generating boilerplate text and suggesting language improvements. This use was intended to streamline the document preparation process and ensure clarity and consistency.
Human Oversight: The AI Tool helped me to see if i have maken any mistake in the documents.
Law: The use of ChatGPT or AI is not prohibited by any code in San Andreas, so I do not see any reason for dispute.

2. Counsel’s Oversight

I affirm that:

 

Error Detection: Every document prepared by me was subjected to analysis by AI to identify whether any errors had been made. AI helped in pinpointing potential issues that required correction.

 

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

/s/ Xavier Castenda

Attorney for Plaintiff

Michelle Jefferson
Date: 17th Of September, 2024

[John Gilbane]

** John Gilbane rises, adjusting his fedora as he steps forward, addressing the court with deliberate confidence **

 

"Your Honor, the defense respectfully submits the following rebuttal to the Plaintiff's response regarding the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the preparation of legal documents.

 

While Plaintiff's counsel claims that AI was merely used as a drafting aid to "ensure clarity and consistency," the defense asserts that the reliance on AI fundamentally breaches the essential standards of professional responsibility and the integrity of court filings. This case presents a critical issue regarding the permissible use of technology in the judicial process, and I contend that the Plaintiff’s reliance on AI in this case is not compliant with court rules."

 

** John Gilbane paces slightly, pausing to glance at the Plaintiff’s counsel before addressing the court **

 

I. Legal Standards Governing the Preparation of Court Filings

"According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and standard legal practice, all filings in court must be made by attorneys licensed to practice law in the respective jurisdiction. This requirement is not merely procedural but is rooted in ensuring accountability, human judgment, and professional responsibility in the representation of clients. The relevant legal principles require that filings be personally prepared, reviewed, and submitted by an attorney who is fully responsible for the content.

 

The use of AI, as admitted by Plaintiff’s counsel, means that certain portions of the document were not entirely authored by human judgment but instead relied on machine-generated language. This undermines the role of an attorney as the primary source of legal reasoning and accountability. In San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of legal counsel’s deliberate exercise of judgment when preparing legal arguments, stressing that legal professionals are held to a standard of rigorous preparation."

 

** John Gilbane firmly adjusts his tie, his voice calm but resolute **

 

II. Complaint Must Be Dismissed for Failure to Comply with Proper Filing Standards

"Your Honor, court rules and federal case law make clear that improper or insufficient filings, especially those that violate procedural rules, should not be entertained by the court. A complaint must be dismissed if it is not properly filed according to court regulations and the principles of civil law. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), every submission must be signed by an attorney of record. This signature signifies that the attorney has conducted a reasonable inquiry into the law and facts before submitting the filing."

 

** John Gilbane raises his hand slightly, gesturing towards the documents laid out on the Plaintiff’s table **

 

"The Plaintiff’s reliance on AI for drafting legal documents suggests that the attorney did not fully meet this obligation. In fact, the argument presented fails to recognize that any use of artificial enhancement that replaces or supplements the professional judgment of counsel is not allowed in this court system.

 

The rules governing civil procedure do not permit the outsourcing of legal judgment to non-human tools, regardless of whether AI was used to detect errors or streamline processes. The legal profession is built on human interpretation, analysis, and discretion, none of which can be meaningfully replaced by AI systems, as acknowledged in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1: Competence.

 

The opposing counsel’s admission that AI was involved in the process suggests that there may have been a failure to properly file, which directly affects the integrity of the documents submitted. Thus, the complaint and any associated motions should be dismissed in their entirety for failure to comply with the standards of preparation required in this jurisdiction."
 

III. Conclusion

"Given the lack of compliance with court procedures and the improper use of AI assistance in preparing and submitting these filings, the defense respectfully requests that the court dismiss the complaint and all associated filings in this case. The court’s rules are clear: the personal responsibility and professional judgment of legal counsel cannot be delegated to AI or other artificial tools."

 

** John Gilbane tips his fedora slightly, giving a confident nod to the judge **

 

"We ask for a swift dismissal, Your Honor, as the Plaintiff's filings do not meet the standards required for legitimate court submissions."

 

/S/ John Gilbane, Esq.

Attorney for Defendant, Los Santos Police Department
 

(( @nfr.ai @almightybounter @Userone ))

Edited September 17, 2024 by John Gilbane

[almightybounter]

Superior Court of San Andreas

County of Los Santos

Civil Division

---

Case No: 24-CV-1034
Case Name: Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department

 

                                                                                               ORDER ON DEFENSE'S MOTION TO RECUSE OPPOSING COUNSEL

This matter comes before the court following the Defendant’s oral motion to recuse Plaintiff’s counsel, Attorney Xavier Castenda, based on allegations of improper use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the preparation of legal filings. The court also addresses the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Evidence. Both parties have submitted briefs concerning the use of AI in legal document preparation.

 

The court acknowledges that technological advancements, including AI tools, have become increasingly common in the legal profession. AI can assist attorneys in drafting documents, checking for errors, and streamlining certain administrative tasks. However, the primary concern here is whether the use of AI by Plaintiff's counsel undermined the professional responsibilities of an attorney, including the requirement for independent legal judgment and accountability.
 

Attorney Xavier Castenda has clarified that AI was employed as a drafting aid to suggest language improvements and identify potential errors in documents. However, he asserts that all filings were reviewed, modified, and finalized by him, fulfilling his professional obligations. The court finds this explanation aligns with the ethical standards provided that the attorney remains the final arbiter of the content and maintains full responsibility for the filings.
 

The Defense argues that reliance on AI breaches procedural standards requiring that court filings be authored by human attorneys, potentially compromising the integrity of the legal process. While the court agrees that the core role of legal counsel must not be delegated to AI, the use of AI as a supplementary tool does not inherently violate procedural rules or ethical standards, provided that counsel exercises full oversight and judgment.
 

The court references Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), which requires every submission to be signed by an attorney of record, certifying that it has been properly reviewed. This rule is meant to ensure accountability, not to preclude the use of advanced tools for drafting assistance. The critical factor is whether the attorney has conducted a reasonable inquiry into the law and facts, applying independent legal judgment.

---

 

ORDER:

• Defense’s Motion to Recuse Plaintiff’s Counsel:
  • The court DENIES the Defense’s motion to recuse Plaintiff’s counsel. The court finds no evidence that the use of AI by Attorney Xavier Castenda in preparing legal documents constituted a breach of his professional duties. The AI's role was limited to providing drafting support, while the attorney retained full responsibility for the filings.
• Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Evidence:
  • Given the resolution of the issue regarding AI's use, the court will now lift the stay on proceedings concerning the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Evidence.
     

The court orders the Los Santos Police Department to respond to the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Evidence within three days of this order. Failure to do so may result in sanctions or adverse inferences.
 

The court acknowledges the evolving role of technology in legal practice. However, the fundamental requirement is that attorneys remain the final and accountable authority over legal filings. In this case, Attorney Xavier Castenda's use of AI does not demonstrate a lack of compliance with professional or procedural standards.

---

 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2024

/s/ Judge Martin Hockenbeyer
Superior Court Judge
County of Los Santos, Civil Division

 

(( @John Gilbane @nfr.ai ))

Edited September 18, 2024 by almightybounter

[John Gilbane]

** John Gilbane rises, adjusting his tie, and steps confidently toward the bench **

 

"Your Honor, while we respect the court's ruling on the motion to recuse Plaintiff’s counsel, we must draw attention to a glaring issue in the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Evidence."

 

** John Gilbane pauses, flipping through the pages of the Plaintiff’s motion before raising his voice just slightly **

 

"In the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, the key element for the requested evidence – the date of the incident – has been entirely omitted, leaving behind the phrase “[insert dates]” as a placeholder. This omission demonstrates precisely why reliance on AI tools in drafting legal documents can lead to significant procedural errors. A lawsuit must be carefully prepared by an attorney who thoroughly reviews the case and pays attention to critical details. The absence of dates makes it impossible for the defense to properly comply with the request, as we have no idea which specific events or incidents the Plaintiff is referring to."

 

** John Gilbane gestures toward the opposing counsel’s table **

 

"The role of counsel is not merely to draft documents but to ensure that the filings are comprehensive, accurate, and reflect a deep understanding of the facts. By leaving placeholders like “[insert dates]” in a critical legal motion, Plaintiff’s counsel has demonstrated a lack of proper review and attention, which could prejudice the case against the Los Santos Police Department.

 

Your Honor, this error underscores the dangers of delegating key aspects of legal document preparation to AI without thorough human oversight. It violates Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires an attorney to ensure that legal filings are factually accurate and well-grounded in law. The Plaintiff’s motion, in its current state, does not meet this standard. 

 

Given this critical oversight, the defense requests that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel be dismissed or, at the very least, amended to include the necessary details before the defense is required to respond."

 

** John Gilbane gives a respectful nod, adjusting his fedora one last time before returning to his seat **

 

 

(( @nfr.ai @almightybounter ))

[almightybounter]

"Counsel?" 

 

(( @nfr.ai )) 

Edited September 17, 2024 by almightybounter

[nfr.ai]

Your Honor, I would like to respond to the allegations made against the Plaintiff’s side.

 

I understand the defense attorney’s intent, but I believe your argument is without merit! What you stated about the supposed incorrect filing is simply a misunderstanding; nearly 80% of lawyers use this particular format for submitting motions. Furthermore, the omission of the date in the motion is not a result of a lack of diligence but rather a technical error. The information regarding the incident is provided at the bottom, so mistakes can happen to anyone - especially since this is my first time in court. Your Honor, I ask for your understanding and request the opportunity to resubmit the motion to compel production of evidence if necessary.

[almightybounter]

Superior Court of San Andreas

County of Los Santos

Civil Division

Case No: 24-CV-1034
Case Name: Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department

---

 

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENSE'S ALLEGATIONS REGARDING AI USE AND FILING ERRORS

The court has reviewed the Plaintiff's response to the Defendant's allegations concerning the use of AI in preparing legal documents and the purported filing errors. The court will address both the Defendant's concerns and the Plaintiff's explanation to ensure a fair and just ruling.

 

 

The court recognizes that AI tools, when used appropriately, can aid in drafting legal documents. The Plaintiff's counsel has clarified that AI was used merely as a drafting aid, with full human oversight maintained. While the Defendant has raised valid concerns about ensuring that legal filings reflect the judgment and responsibility of the attorney, the court finds that there has been no violation of ethical standards in this instance.

 

The court acknowledges the Plaintiff's counsel's admission of a technical error in the initial filing. Minor errors in legal documents can occur, particularly for attorneys appearing in court for the first time. However, this does not excuse the responsibility to ensure that all filings are complete and accurate. In the interest of fairness, the court will permit the Plaintiff to correct the procedural deficiency.
 

ORDER:

• The court finds no evidence of misconduct regarding the use of AI by Plaintiff's counsel. This matter is now settled and will not be revisited without substantial new grounds.
• The Plaintiff is granted leave to resubmit the motion to compel production of evidence, ensuring all procedural requirements are fully met. The corrected filing must be submitted within 3 days of this order.

Both parties are reminded of their obligations to uphold the integrity of court proceedings. Continued focus on procedural disputes to the detriment of substantive issues may result in sanctions.

---

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2024

/s/ Judge Martin Hockenbeyer
Superior Court Judge
County of Los Santos, Civil Division

 

(( @nfr.ai @John Gilbane ))

[nfr.ai]

Your Honor, we would like to file an re-motion.
 

Michelle Jefferson
Plaintiff,

v.

Los Santos Police Department
Defendant.

Case No.: 24-CV-1034
Superior Court of Los Santos
Los Santos, SA 90012

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE

---

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Michelle Jefferson, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedur 2031.310 and 2030.300, hereby submits this Motion to Compel Production of Evidence. Specifically, we request the production of bodycam and dash cam footage from Officer Sergeant Amber Moore. These materials are essential for the proper adjudication of case number 24-CV-1034.

II. BACKGROUND

On September 15, 2024, the plaintiff submitted discovery requests, including requests for bodycam and dash cam footage from Officer Sergeant Amber Moore. Despite multiple attempts to obtain these materials and subsequent follow-up requests, the Los Santos Police Department has failed to provide the requested evidence or respond to the requests.

III. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court order the Los Santos Police Department to produce the following evidence:

1. Bodycam footage from Officer Sergeant Amber Moore, including all recordings related to incidents occurring on August 17, 23, 26, 28, 30, and September 2, 9, 10, 12, and 14.
2. Dash cam footage from the police vehicle occupied by Sergeant Amber Moore, including all recordings related to incidents occurring on August 17, 23, 26, 28, 30, and September 2, 9, 10, 12, and 14.

IV. ARGUMENT

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedur Sections 2031.310 and 2030.300, a party may file a motion to compel if the opposing party fails to respond to discovery requests or provides inadequate responses. The requested footage is crucial for establishing facts in the case and may have a decisive impact on the outcome.

V. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit A: Copy of discovery requests for bodycam and dash cam footage, submitted on August 17, 23, 26, 28, 30, and September 2, 9, 10, 12, and 14. Exhibit B: Copy of correspondence or lack of response from Los Santos Police Department. Exhibit C ;Proof of attempts to resolve the dispute without court intervention.

VI. SIGNATURE

Xavier Castenda
Castenda Law Firm
Los Santos, SAN ANDREAS, 90004
2247739
[email protected]

Signature: Xavier Castenda
Date: 18th Of September, 2024.

Edited September 18, 2024 by nfr.ai

[Kotwica]

Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department
 

Case Number: 24-CV-1034

Prepared by: Donald J. Wright and Jacob Ezekiel Rabinowitz III.
 

MOTION FOR ADDITION OF COUNSEL

_______________________________________________
 

Comes now, Donald J. Wright and Jacob E. Rabinowitz III after approval from the plaintiff, request the court record reflect the addition of counsel.

Mr. Wright and Mr. Rabinowitz are acting pro bono in this matter for the sole purpose of protecting the citizens of the United States who choose to express their dissatisfaction with their government, including that of protesting.

Arrangements have been made with the current listed counsel and we have his consent as well.

 

_______________________________________________

Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.

 

Sworn this 18 day of September, 2024 by:

 

/s/ Donald J. Wright
Donald J. Wright on behalf of himself and Jacob Ezekiel Rabinowitz III.

(( @almightybounter ))

Edited September 18, 2024 by Kotwica

[almightybounter]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

Case No: 24-CV-1034
Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ADDITION OF COUNSEL

The Plaintiff, Michelle Jefferson, through her current counsel Xavier Castenda, has submitted a "Motion for Addition of Counsel" to allow attorneys Donald J. Wright and Jacob Ezekiel Rabinowitz III to join as additional counsel in this matter. The motion indicates that the proposed attorneys wish to act "pro bono" to protect the rights of citizens who protest. After careful consideration, the Court finds that the motion should be denied for the reasons set forth below.

The Court recognizes the right of a party to be represented by counsel, as provided under 28 U.S.C. § 1654, which states that parties may "plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel." However, this right does not grant an unfettered entitlement to multiple or additional counsel at any time, particularly where such an addition may result in complications, delays, or conflicts within the proceedings.
 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are designed to secure the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding" (Fed. R. Civ. P. 1). The addition of multiple counsel in a case already represented by an attorney can potentially disrupt the efficient progression of the case. Introducing two additional attorneys without demonstrated cause can lead to unnecessary complications in case management, potentially delaying proceedings and increasing the burden on the court.

The Plaintiff's motion fails to articulate any specific need or cause for the addition of new counsel, nor does it suggest any inadequacy in the current representation. Without such a showing, the Court finds no compelling reason to grant the request, as it may introduce strategic differences, divided responsibilities, and complexities contrary to the goals of Rule 1.
 

The Plaintiff is currently represented by Xavier Castenda, whose representation has not been shown to be ineffective, conflicted, or otherwise deficient. According to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7, which governs conflicts of interest, the Court has a duty to ensure that legal representation serves the client's best interests. Adding new counsel at this stage, especially without a demonstrated need, could disrupt the current attorney-client relationship, leading to conflicts in case strategy and legal judgment.

Further, Rule 1.2 emphasizes that the attorney must consult with the client regarding the means of pursuing their objectives. The introduction of additional counsel risks creating conflicting advice and strategic disagreements, potentially detracting from the Plaintiff's interests rather than protecting them.
 

While the proposed counsel seeks to act "pro bono," this status does not automatically warrant their inclusion. The Court must ensure that its proceedings are conducted in an orderly and efficient manner. The Court appreciates the public-spirited nature of pro bono representation; however, it must balance this against the need for procedural orderliness and the current adequacy of representation.
 

The motion does not allege any deficiency in the Plaintiff's current representation, nor does it demonstrate a compelling reason for the addition of new counsel. Courts may grant additional representation when there is evidence of inadequate representation, a conflict of interest, or complexity warranting multiple attorneys. However, none of these factors are present here. The mere desire to represent protestors or act in the public interest, while noble, does not necessitate the addition of new counsel in this specific case.
 

The Court is vested with the authority to manage its docket and the proceedings before it. The decision to allow additional counsel lies within the Court's discretion to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process. Citing 28 U.S.C. § 1654 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, the Court exercises this discretion to prevent potential disruption, confusion, or delay in these proceedings.
 

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the "Motion for Addition of Counsel" lacks sufficient cause to warrant the addition of Donald J. Wright and Jacob Ezekiel Rabinowitz III as additional counsel in this matter. The Plaintiff is currently represented by competent counsel, and the addition of further attorneys would unnecessarily complicate and potentially delay the proceedings without serving the interests of justice.
 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff's "Motion for Addition of Counsel" is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2024

/s/ Judge Martin Hockenbeyer
Superior Court Judge
County of Los Santos, Civil Division

(( @Kotwica )) 

 

[Kotwica]

"Your Honor, a client has a right to counsel of their own choosing. The term counsel does not refer to a singular person. Additionally, there is only a notice requirement, an attorney does not need permission to take a case or add themselves onto a case, that is a contractual arrangement between the attorneys and the plaintiff or defendant. The Supreme Court has outlined limited circumstances where counsel can be "denied" and that relies on the grounds of compromising loyalty, or competence. This court has no right to deny such counsel, your argument about delaying trial is not ripe for judgment as it has not occurred in this case. We request a motion to reconsider or I will file a motion to stay the proceedings until the Court of Appeals rules on the issue.

Thank you."

(( @almightybounter ))

[Jacob Rabinowitz]

** The Court Clerk receives a fax from the Office of Jacob E. Rabinowitz, Esq.

 

TO: Court Clerk; Court Reporter; Judge Martin Hockenbeyer; Counsel for Defendant Los Santos Police Department; Lead Counsel for Plaintiff Michelle Jefferson
FROM: Jacob E. Rabinowitz III, Esq.

DATE: September 18th, 2024

RE: Case 24-CV-1034 Adoption of Co-Counsel in Matter, Application of Rule 44, et al.

-----

 

To the Honorable Judge Martin Hockenbeyer:

 

I write today in regard to a recent decision on the motion for addition of co-counsel which I believe to have been determined in error. Our client, Michelle Jefferson, has entered into a joint agreement with our firm and is entitled under Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to introduce counsel including co-counsel. Neither 28 U.S.C. §1654 nor Fed. R. Civ. R. 1 permit this court to exercise discretion over this matter. As this court knows, a misapplication of discretion by the court is subject to de novo review by an appellate court. If, upon de novo review of the issue, this court is determined to have erred in its use of discretion, a new trial must be granted. In the interest of not wasting precious time and resources, it is imperative that this case not be derailed by an abuse of discretion that will, by merit of the law, only result in the granting of a new trial.

 

Therefore, given this court has failed to substantiate the legal basis from which it derives the right to apply discretion in this manner, we humbly implore the court to avoid the errant use of discretion, or the appearance thereof, and to defer instead to appointment of co-counsel. Furthermore, we wish to stress that a departure from the rules of civil procedure in this respect is immediately appealable as an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(b) and (d)1.

 

It is our sincere hope that this court adheres to the rules that bind it.

 

Signed,

 

Jacob E. Rabinowitz III

Counsel for Plaintiff

 

(( @almightybounter @Kotwica @nfr.ai @John Gilbane ))

Edited September 18, 2024 by Jacob Rabinowitz
add @ tags

[almightybounter]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department
Case No: 24-CV-1034

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The court has reviewed the submissions by Donald J. Wright and Jacob E. Rabinowitz III, who seek reconsideration of the court’s previous order denying their motion to join as additional counsel for the Plaintiff. Both counsels assert that the Plaintiff's right to legal representation encompasses the addition of multiple attorneys and argue that the court lacks discretion to deny such a request under Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1654, and other cited authorities.

The court acknowledges the Plaintiff's right under Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to be represented by counsel, including co-counsel. However, this right is not without limits when it comes to the court’s inherent authority to manage its proceedings. While Rule 44 does allow for parties to be represented by counsel of their choice, this right does not supersede the court’s duty to ensure that the litigation process remains fair, orderly, and free from undue delays or procedural complications. The court's responsibility extends to managing the docket in a manner that avoids the potential for inefficiency or conflict among counsel, which could ultimately prejudice the Plaintiff or the proceedings as a whole.

28 U.S.C. § 1654 permits parties to plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel. However, this statute does not strip the court of its inherent power to regulate the conduct of attorneys and manage the cases before it. Courts possess broad discretion to make determinations that preserve the integrity of the judicial process, including the authority to limit the participation of counsel when it is necessary to prevent potential conflicts, confusion, or delay.

Furthermore, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 directs that these rules "should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding." The addition of multiple counsel at this juncture could compromise these objectives by introducing complexities that are unnecessary at this early stage.

The court acknowledges the assertion that its decision is subject to de novo review by an appellate court. However, it is also well-established that trial courts are granted broad discretion in managing their proceedings, as upheld in Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In the exercise of such discretion, this court has assessed the current representation of the Plaintiff, the procedural posture of this case, and the potential implications of introducing additional counsel. This ruling is not based on an infringement of the Plaintiff's right to counsel but rather on the court's duty to ensure orderly case management.

Additionally, the reference to interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and (d)(1) does not automatically render this court's decision subject to reversal. The court has acted within the bounds of its discretionary power to manage litigation effectively, and it finds no "substantial ground for difference of opinion" on this matter that would warrant an immediate appeal. The preservation of judicial efficiency and the avoidance of unnecessary procedural delays are legitimate bases for this court's decision.

The Plaintiff is adequately represented by current counsel. The court’s decision to deny the addition of counsel at this time does not preclude the possibility of reconsideration should circumstances evolve in a manner that justifies additional legal representation without compromising the integrity of the proceedings.

After thorough consideration, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. This court affirms its prior order as an exercise of its discretion to maintain the orderly administration of justice. Should the Plaintiff wish to appeal this decision, they are entitled to do so through the appropriate legal channels; however, this case shall proceed without the addition of Mr. Wright and Mr. Rabinowitz as co-counsel at this time.
 

So Ordered.

Dated: September 18, 2024
Judge: Martin Hockenbeyer
Superior Court of San Andreas

 

(( @Kotwica @Jacob Rabinowitz )) 

[Jacob Rabinowitz]

Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department
 

Case Number: 24-CV-1034

Prepared by: Jacob Ezekiel Rabinowitz III and Donald J. Wright.
 

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL

_______________________________________________
 

Comes now, Donald J. Wright and Jacob E. Rabinowitz III after approval from the plaintiff, move this court for a stay of proceedings pending appeal of an immediately reviewable decision under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) and (d)1.
 

1. Movant submitted a motion for addition of co-counsel with the approval of the plaintiff, asserting her rights under Fed R. Civ. P. 44, Right to and Appointment of Counsel, and 28 U.S.C. § 1654. This court issued a responsive order denying the motion for addition of co-counsel. Movant possessed grounds for its original motion as movant has been retained by Plaintiff as substitutional or supplementary counsel for this matter. Furthermore, Movant possesses grounds for this motion as a result of this court's denial of the original motion for appointment of additional counsel.
    
2. Plaintiff has a right to appoint counsel of her choosing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1654. By the gender/number canon of construction, the singular of any term used in law includes the plural. Here, the word "counsel" adopts the meaning of the plural "counsel" by the applicable canon of construction.
    
3. In justifying its denial of the motion, this court is alleged to have abused its discretion in a manner that is subject to immediate review by an appellate court under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) and (d)1. This court's order is immediately appealable and eligible to interlocutory appeal to the appellate division if it involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.
    
4. This court's denial of the motion deprives Plaintiff of a fundamental right to appointment of counsel which is likely to deprive her of the ability to, through appointed counsel, submit the requisite motions and materials that would advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. This court's responsive order impinges Plaintiff's ability to effectively represent her argument through appointed counsel.
    
5. This court admits in its denial of the motion that Plaintiff has the right to appoint counsel, but qualifies this right by stating in its order "this right does not supersede the court’s duty to ensure that the litigation process remains fair, orderly, and free from undue delays or procedural complications". This court implies that the litigation process would be made unfair, disorderly, or unduly delayed, or procedurally complicated by the introduction of co-counsel in this matter. This court's order lacks a justification for its reasoning in making this determination. Neither movant nor plaintiff was given a hearing to determine whether the introduction of co-counsel would tend to introduce such unfairness, disorder, undue delays, or procedural complications.
    
6. The nature of Plaintiff's case is a civil rights matter, which is a particular area of law with its own intricacies and precedents. Movant attorneys Donald J. Wright and Jacob E. Rabinowitz III are both trained and experienced civil rights attorneys whose combined experience exceeds fifty years. As such, any such complications introduced to the proceeding by movant's application, on behalf of the retaining client, are necessary and proper due to the subject matter involved.
    
7. This court states in its responsive order, "The court's responsibility extends to managing the docket in a manner that avoids the potential for inefficiency or conflict among counsel, which could ultimately prejudice the Plaintiff or the proceedings as a whole." This court alleges, without justification or evidence, that the introduction of co-counsel would prejudice either the Plaintiff or the proceedings. Neither movant nor plaintiff was given a hearing to determine whether the introduction of co-counsel would tend to introduce such prejudice. In making such an order, this court has acted sua sponte in a manner that prejudices the proceeding in favor of Defendant.
    
8. This court states in its responsive order that "Courts possess broad discretion to make determinations that preserve the integrity of the judicial process, including the authority to limit the participation of counsel when it is necessary to prevent potential conflicts, confusion, or delay." In making this claim, this court has failed to substantiate the statute or rule from which it derives this authority. This court errantly references Fed R. Civ. P. 1, which is a statement of purpose, as justification. However, Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 is not a substantive rule that is enforceable in this way. The rule does not grant this court discretion to take an action such as denying Plaintiff the right to appoint, supplement, or dismiss counsel at her own discretion. Instead, the court has attempted to define for Plaintiff what constitutes effective counsel. 28 U.S.C. §1654 states substantively, "In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein." Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 being an administrative regulation that is superseded by 28 U.S.C. §1654, it is subject to the restrictions imposed therein. The superseding statute states clearly that "the parties may... manage and conduct causes therein". This court has erred in its failure to substantiate not only a reason why Plaintiff does not possess this right, but has also failed to produce a substantive rule or statute granting this court discretion over this specific type of matter. While courts indeed possess discretion over how to apply many rules, this is not such a rule and this court is compelled by the sixth amendment as well as the superseding statute to permit Plaintiff her right to appoint counsel.
    
9. This court acknowledges that its order will be subject to de novo review if abuse of discretion can be shown in an interlocutory appeal.
    
10. This court errantly justifies its order by referencing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936), which held that a stay pending the decision of a case being tried in another district court was an abuse of discretion and that a court may not by its own discretion stay proceedings pending a matter being held in another district court. The precedent referenced is irrelevant to movant's application because there is no second case being tried in another district court. Rather, there is a question of law that must be answered and whose answer may significantly impact the outcome of the present matter being tried before this court. As such, the application of this precedent is prima facie erroneous.
     
11. The reasoning that follows this court's errant application of Landis begins with a premise that it has discretion over whether to stay such matters. However, as referenced in [10] above, this court does not have such discretion under Landis. Rather, this court is impelled by the administration of proper justice to stay these proceedings pending appeal because the nature of the appeal to be filed is of a matter that, if this court is reversed, would have a substantial and irreparable impact on the ability for this case to proceed. Furthermore, if Plaintiff is denied the ability to have motions, depositions, arguments, evidence, or other items submitted by the co-counsel she intends to appoint, she will have been denied her rights under the fifth amendment and many other related, subsequent statutes.
     
12. This court asserts that there is no grounds for interlocutory appeal, however this court lacks jurisdiction to prevent the filing of an interlocutory appeal of the responsive order. As such, movants intend to file an appeal immediately and to move the appellate court to enjoin this court from continuing proceedings until resolution of the appeal from the responsive order. This court further asserts that it finds no significant difference in opinion, but once more this court lacks jurisdiction over any interlocutory appeal that may follow. Even while this court may assert that it has a legitimate basis, movants have substantial legal basis for disagreement and therefore this matter is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b).
     
13. This court states in its responsive order that Plaintiff is "adequately represented" by counsel. However, neither movant nor existing counsel has been given a hearing to ascertain whether such counsel is adequate. This court has acted sua sponte without consulting Plaintiff's counsel of record concerning any inadequacies that may be present. In doing so, this court has erred and failed to adequately analyze whether such counsel is adequate given Plaintiff's argument and present legal challenges. This court states openly in its responsive order that it may reconsider the necessity of additional counsel "should circumstances evolve in a manner that justifies additional legal representation without compromising the integrity of the proceedings." In making this statement, this court reaffirms that it is acting sua sponte to impinge upon Plaintiff's right to "manage and conduct causes therein" as the right is substantiated in 28 U.S.C. §1654.
     
14. This court states in its responsive order that proceedings will continue while any subsequent appeal of the order is pending. Movant intends to appeal this immediately reviewable order within the time period prescribed by law, and continuing this case while an appeal is pending would tend to cause irreparable harm to movant's ability as co-counsel to adequately represent Plaintiff, thereby disadvantaging Plaintiff. If movant is unable to timely file motions on behalf of Plaintiff, Plaintiff may not be able to represent her case in the best light.
     
15. Where irreparable harm is likely and demonstrable, this court is impelled, by its duty to ensure equal justice under law, to stay proceedings pending review because a successful appeal is likely to do irreparable harm. If this court continues proceedings and the appellate court later overturns the order after Plaintiff's counsel has been unable to adequately represent her case, the entire proceeding will be subject to dismissal by the appellate jurisdiction, with a new trial to follow. This court has a duty to avoid unnecessary delays in the administration of justice, and an order for a new trial would certainly be such a delay that this court is duty-bound to avoid.

 

In consideration of the arguments herein, movants hereby request a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of an interlocutory appeal of the responsive order by the appellate court, which will be filed within the requisite time period prescribed by law.

 

_______________________________________________

Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.

 

Sworn this 19th day of September, 2024 by:

 

/s/ Jacob E. Rabinowitz III
On Behalf of Movant Attorneys Donald J. Wright and himself.

(( @almightybounter ))

[almightybounter]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department
Case No: 24-CV-1034

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL

The court has reviewed the Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal submitted by Mr. Donald J. Wright and Mr. Jacob E. Rabinowitz III. The movants argue that the denial of their previous motion to act as co-counsel for the Plaintiff constitutes an abuse of discretion and warrants an interlocutory appeal. They further assert that this court's decision deprived the Plaintiff of her right to counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1654 and Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The movants seek to stay the current proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal to the appellate court.

The court reiterates its previous determination that it possesses the inherent authority to manage the proceedings before it in a manner that ensures fairness, orderliness, and efficiency. The authority to manage cases includes regulating the participation of counsel to prevent potential conflicts, confusion, or delays, as supported by long-standing principles of judicial administration. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-631 (1962) ("The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an 'inherent power,' governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases").

The court recognizes the Plaintiff's right to be represented by counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1654, which provides that parties may plead and conduct their cases personally or by counsel. This right, however, does not extend to an absolute entitlement to an unlimited number of attorneys or co-counsel. Courts have discretion to limit the participation of counsel when necessary to maintain the efficient and fair administration of justice. Here, the court's decision was made in the context of managing the procedural posture of this litigation, ensuring that the introduction of additional counsel does not unnecessarily complicate or delay the proceedings. This action falls within the court's discretionary authority and does not infringe upon the Plaintiff's fundamental right to counsel.

The movants contend that the denial of the motion for additional counsel constitutes a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion, thus warranting an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). However, an interlocutory appeal is an exception rather than the norm, reserved for "extraordinary circumstances" where immediate appeal may "materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." Klinghoffer v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro, 921 F.2d 21, 25 (2d Cir. 1990). The court finds that this case does not present such exceptional circumstances. The central issue concerns the court's discretion in managing its docket, not a novel or complex question of law that would alter the course of the litigation in a manner requiring immediate appellate intervention.

Movants argue that denying the stay would result in irreparable harm to the Plaintiff's ability to have effective representation. This assertion is speculative and unsubstantiated. The Plaintiff is currently represented by competent counsel, and the denial of additional counsel does not impair her ability to pursue her claims or defenses. The court's decision was made with the explicit consideration of avoiding undue prejudice or delay. Furthermore, the possibility of success on appeal is not sufficient to demonstrate irreparable harm, as courts require a showing of concrete and immediate injury to justify a stay of proceedings. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (A party seeking a stay must demonstrate that irreparable injury is "likely in the absence of an injunction").

The movants mischaracterize this court’s reference to Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936), suggesting the court erroneously relied on it to justify a sua sponte stay. The court did not cite Landis to justify its discretion in staying proceedings but rather to demonstrate its inherent power in managing complex litigation. The court has acted within the bounds of its authority to ensure orderly proceedings, and the refusal to permit additional counsel was grounded in a careful assessment of the potential impact on case management. The movants’ reliance on alleged procedural errors to support an interlocutory appeal is unavailing, as this court's decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

While movants suggest that the court lacks jurisdiction to prevent the filing of an interlocutory appeal, it is within this court's discretion to deny a stay pending such an appeal. An interlocutory appeal is not automatic, and the court's order does not foreclose the appellate court's review. However, granting a stay is a discretionary act that must be predicated on a clear showing of substantial grounds for relief. Movants have not demonstrated the necessity for a stay, nor have they established that proceeding without a stay would result in substantial injustice.

The Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal is DENIED. The court reaffirms its earlier ruling that the litigation process must continue in an orderly and efficient manner. The Plaintiff retains her right to appeal this decision through the proper channels, but this matter will proceed without delay in the interim.
 

So Ordered.

Dated: September 19, 2024
Judge: Martin Hockenbeyer
Superior Court of San Andreas

Edited September 19, 2024 by almightybounter