Hollister v. Soetoro: Judge Denies Specific Motions in Pending Case
Plaintiff’s motion to file interpleader and deposit funds with the court [#2] is frivolous and is denied. His motion to shorten time for defendants to respond to his complaint [#3] is moot and is denied. The motions of his counsel [#4, #5] for the admission pro hac vice of Philip J. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce are in abeyance until the Court has had the opportunity, in open court, to examine their credentials, their competence, their good faith, and the factual and legal bases of the complaint they have signed.JAMES ROBERTSONUnited States District Judge
This order does not dismiss the case; it merely tackles certain, specific issues that the Plaintiff requested. A commenter on another forum expressed the same sentiment:
Clarification: The Judge did not dismiss the case. The complaint is for Interpleader and Declaratory (and injunctive) relief. Therefore, the case is still alive (hence, the holding motions for acmission pro hac vicein abeyance, pending hearing) — at least pending the judge’s ruling on the motion to dismiss.
Thus, although the interpleader aspect of the case was the thing that made some folks believe it had a better shot, the case is still alive.
Although it’s dangerous to try to read too far into an order, it could be that the judge did not dismiss the case entirely precisely because he wants the attorneys to appear in open court and defend their competence, good faith, factual/legal basis for filing the complaint.
Bottom line: the case is still pending pursuant to further action by the Court.
65 responses to Hollister v. Soetoro: Judge Denies Specific Motions in Pending Case