Noe v. Ray Realty

Background

On February 12, 2024, Plaintiff Carol Noe filed a letter requesting several forms of relief: an adjournment, or postponement, of the settlement conference; more time to oppose Defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint; oral argument on those motions; instructions for filing materials under seal; and appointment of counsel for all purposes. Defendants opposed the requests. Noe also filed a motion seeking a stay, meaning a pause, of the court’s December 15, 2023 order. The court said that motion appeared substantively identical to an earlier motion that it had denied on December 21, 2023.

Request for Counsel

The court explained that appointment of volunteer counsel in a civil case is discretionary and uncommon. Before seeking such counsel, the court first considers whether the claims appear likely to have substance. For purposes of Noe’s request, the court liberally construed the amended complaint and assumed that it had some likelihood of merit. The court then considered whether Noe had shown that she could not obtain counsel herself and could not handle the case without assistance.

The court concluded that Noe had not shown that her search for counsel was exhaustive, noting that she did not appear to have contacted legal-services clinics or nonprofit organizations. It also concluded that she had not explained how her respiratory disability prevented her from litigating, why the case required legal expertise, or what investigation or other work could be done only with a lawyer’s help. The court therefore denied her request for counsel for all purposes. It stated that she could renew the request later if circumstances changed.

Other Requests and Disposition

The court granted Noe’s request to adjourn the settlement conference until May 1, 2024, with ex parte settlement-conference filings due April 30, 2024. It also granted her request for an extension until May 30, 2024, to file her opposition to Defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint, while cautioning that no further extensions would be granted absent very good cause. If Noe filed her opposition by May 30, Defendants’ replies would be due June 6, 2024.

The court stated that it would decide whether to hold oral argument on the motions to dismiss after reviewing the written submissions. It directed Noe to instructions in the judge’s individual rules for filing materials under seal. It did not rule on the motions to dismiss themselves, and stated that discovery would not begin before those motions were decided. Finally, the court denied Noe’s motion to stay the December 15 order for the reasons given in its December 21 order and requested that the clerk terminate Docket Number 180.