United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
CAILIN NICOLE SOLOFF Pro Se, and DYLAN MICHAEL SOLOFF Pro Se, Plaintiffs,
EDWARD J. AUFMAN, WILLIAM J. GAFFEY, and AUFMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' PENDING MOTIONS,
DOC. NO. 87, DOC. NO. 92, DOC. NO. 93, AND DOC. NO.
J. Schwab United States District Judge.
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.
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.
Plaintiffs' Motion for Judicial Notice to be Taken,
Doc. No. 87
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.
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Second Refusal
to Recuse, Doc. No. 92
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
(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
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:
ADR Neutral's Docket Filings
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,
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