Soloff v. Aufman

          MEMORANDUM ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' PENDING MOTIONS, DOC. NO. 87, DOC. NO. 92, DOC. NO. 93, AND DOC. NO. 95

          Arthur J. Schwab United States District Judge.

         Within the past week, Plaintiffs have filed four motions: (1) a Motion for Judicial Notice to be Taken, asking that the Court take judicial notice that Plaintiffs were unemancipated minors who had not attained 18 years of age in 2014, and that the statute of limitations period during which their causes of action must be commenced was therefore tolled until they reached age 18, pursuant to 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5533, Doc. No. 87; (2) a pleading styled Motion for Reconsideration of Second Refusal to Recuse, containing a plethora of arguments, mostly related to the Alternative Dispute Resolution process, Doc. No. 92; (3) a First Motion to Continue, seeking clarification of a scheduling order and a new Pretrial Order in the case, Doc. No. 93; and (4) a First Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Mandamus, seeking a stay of the case until the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled upon Plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Doc. No. 95.

         Defendants have responded to each Motion. See Doc. Nos. 97, 98, 99, and 100. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court will GRANT Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Mandamus, Doc. No. 95, EXCEPT THAT Defendants may refile a Motion for Sanctions consistent with LCvR 16.2 and Appendix A to the ADR Policies and Procedures pursuant to the previously entered Text Order at Doc. No. 84 (which will be assigned to another Judicial Officer pursuant to said Appendix A). Further, Plaintiffs must comply with the Order entered at Doc. No. 82 Granting Defendants' Motion to Compel, which directs Plaintiffs to file appropriate discovery responses and to produce documents requested by Defendants. Plaintiffs' other Motions, Doc. nos. 87, 92, and 93 are DENIED.

         1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Judicial Notice to be Taken, Doc. No. 87

         Plaintiffs' Motion for Judicial Notice to be Taken, Doc. No. 87, relates to the merits of Plaintiffs' claims, and Defendants' affirmative defenses, and is DENIED, without prejudice, since the request is premature in this litigation and since the relief requested is beyond the scope of Federal Rule of Evidence 201.

         2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Second Refusal to Recuse, Doc. No. 92

         Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Second Refusal to Recuse, Doc. No. 92, fails to set forth any of the conditions requisite to a district court's reconsideration of a prior order, which are:

(1) if there has been an intervening change in controlling law;

(2) if new evidence, which was not previously available, has become available; or

(3) if it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice.

Howard Hess Dental, 602 F.3d 237, 251 (3d Cir. 2010), citing Max's Seafood Café by Lou Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)^[1].

         Although Plaintiffs have not established any of these conditions, they do attempt to introduce new “evidence” into the proceedings through numerous misstatements of fact related to docket entries in this case. The Court will address these misstatements to allay Plaintiffs' concerns, as follows:

         a. ADR Neutral's Docket Filings

         Plaintiffs assert that the undersigned District Judge “impersonated” the ADR Neutral selected by the Parties, see ADR Stipulation at Doc. No. 18, added his name to the docket in this case, ^[2] and filed an ADR Report to which the undersigned District Judge had allegedly added “his own” opinions. Doc. No. 92, pp. 2-5. Plaintiffs do not offer evidence in support of this assertion, nor much in the way of explanation for their conclusions that this happened - - other than that the ...