Woodruff v. De Facto Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP

Background

Kevin Woodruff, Tanya Stutson, and Wanag Tahatan-Bey sued De Facto Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP; Unregister Foreign Bar British Agents; Contra Costa County; Deborah Cooper; Candace Andersen; and David O. Livingston. The plaintiffs represented themselves. Their initial filing, titled “Trial by Affidavit,” was signed only by Wanag Tahatan-Bey, although all three were listed as plaintiffs. The court stated that the filing was largely incomprehensible and did not identify understandable facts, individual legal claims, or requested relief.

Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP, which the opinion says was incorrectly sued under the name “De Facto Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP,” filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for a more definite statement. A motion for a more definite statement asks the court to require a clearer pleading. The plaintiffs’ response was due December 6, 2021, but no response was filed.

Petition to Strike

Instead of responding to the dismissal motion, Wanag Tahatan-Bey filed a “Petition to Strike Defendants Insufficient Defense and to Compel Defendants Response to/and by Affidavit and with Attorney of Record.” The petition claimed there was no evidence that the firm’s lawyer had properly appeared and suggested that the lawyer could not practice law for the firm.

The court rejected those arguments. It stated that Edward A. Treder had entered an appearance when he filed the firm’s dismissal motion. The court also said that the petition quoted language that did not appear in the cited decision and that the cited authorities did not support the petition’s argument. The court further stated that the firm was organized as a professional association, identified in the opinion as an LLP, and that nothing cited prohibited the firm from practicing law or prohibited Mr. Treder from representing it.

Ruling

The court denied the Petition to Strike. It did not decide the pending motion to dismiss. Instead, citing its standing order and the preference for considering less drastic alternatives before dismissal, the court gave the plaintiffs another opportunity to respond.

The plaintiffs were ordered to file and serve their response to the motion to dismiss by January 21, 2022. If they failed to respond on time or failed to follow applicable procedural rules, the court warned that the motion might be granted and/or the action might be dismissed without further notice. If a response was filed, the firm’s reply would be due January 28, 2022.

The court also ordered that the motion would be resolved without oral argument and vacated the January 12, 2022 hearing. The order was issued by the court identified as Judge Saundra B. Armstrong; the signature block states that Richard Seeborg signed for Saundra B. Armstrong.