Oy Vey

The Honorable Judge O’Connor set a hearing for the Injunction, and Neil C. Evans responded with a request to postpone the hearing, “due to Jewish Holidays, vacations, and conflicting matters” (Case 3:10-cv-01349; Page ID 741).  Neil also claimed that he has, “been scheduled to attend Trials in a family law matter” this week (Case 3:10-cv-01349; Page ID 740).  It sounds like Mr. Evans thinks his schedule is more important than that of a Federal Judge.  He showed contempt for Judge Otero in the Criminal Case so I am not surprised to see the same flippancy in the Civil Case.

Here is what Judge O’Connor had to say to that:

“Before the Court is the Declaration of Neil C. Evans Requesting Re-calendaring of Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 33). On April 4, 2011 the Court set a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. See ECF No. 32. Mr. Evans indicates that he has trials on April 11, 2011 and April 13, 2011 in a family law matter set in Ventura County Superior Court, California. See ECF No. 33. One such trial was recently moved to April 13, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. See ECF No. 33.  Mr. Evans further states that he is “unavailable the weeks of April 18 and April 25, 2011, due to Jewish Holidays, vacations, and conflicting matters.” Id. Mr. Evans requests that the Court recalendar the hearing on Plaintiff’s pending motion during the first two weeks of May, 2011. Id.

The Court hereby DENIES Mr. Evans’s request for such delay.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction hinges on allegations of imminent and irreparable harm. See ECF No. 22. A multi-week delay would fail to accord Plaintiff substantial justice and would unduly prejudice Plaintiff. Nonetheless, in light of Mr. Evans’s noted conflict on April 13, 2011, the Court will briefly delay the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Mr. Evans has not shown or mentioned any conflict on April 15, 2011. See, e.g. ECF No. 33. Accordingly, the Court sets a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Friday, April 15, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will convene in the United States District Judge’s Courtroom 1516, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas. Lead counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendants are hereby ORDERED to appear and be prepared to discuss all issues related to Plaintiff’s Motion” (Case 3:10-cv-01349; Page ID 743 and 744).

Without any motion filed by either side the Judge filed another order last Friday stating:

“Pursuant to Local Rule 83.10(a), local counsel is required in all cases where an attorney appearing in a case does not reside or maintain an office in the Northern District of Texas. See L.R. 83.10(a). An attorney who desires to proceed without local counsel must obtain leave from the Court. Id. In this case, Neil C. Evans, attorney for Defendants, does not reside or maintain an office in the Northern District of Texas. Accordingly, Mr. Evans must either obtain leave from this Court to proceed without local counsel, or obtain local counsel. See id.

It is therefore ORDERED that Mr. Evans either file a motion for leave to proceed without local counsel or engage local counsel on or before April 22, 2011” (Case 3:10-cv-01349; Page ID 745).

What a shock.  Once again Neil Evans is not doing anything correctly.  His haphazard legal practices definitely helped the Government’s case against Feuerborn and Jennings, and it looks like he is continuing those same practices in this case.  This should get interesting.  Any local Dallas-ites plan on attending?  I would love a play-by-play.

-ESS Investor