Weinstein v. Madison

United States District Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division · February 10, 2025 · No. 1:23-cv-01534-DAE

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses multiple motions filed by Defendant Jennifer Madison, including requests to dismiss the case, continue proceedings, strike pleadings, and obtain a protective order, alongside Plaintiff Peter D. Weinstein’s motion for attorney’s fees under Rule 11. The Magistrate Judge finds that the Defendant’s motions lack merit or good cause and recommends denial, while also denying the Plaintiff’s fee request due to procedural noncompliance with Rule 11(c)(2). The document concludes by admonishing the pro se Defendant regarding potential sanctions for frivolous filings and outlines the procedure for filing objections.

Court
United States District Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division
Writing for the Court
Susan Hightower
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
Decision date
February 10, 2025
Docket number
1:23-cv-01534-DAE
Procedural posture
Defendant's motions to continue, dismiss, strike complaint, protective order and related requests were denied.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
other

Topics

motions to dismisscivil proceduresanctionsattorney fees

Practice areas

civil proceduretorts

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Defendant's motion to dismiss the libel and defamation claims should be granted.
  2. Whether Defendant's motions for continuance should be granted.
  3. Whether Defendant's motion to strike the complaint should be granted.
  4. Whether Defendant's motion for a protective order should be granted.
  5. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees under Rule 11.

Holdings

  1. The court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss.
  2. The court denied both continuance motions.
  3. The court denied the motion to strike.
  4. The court denied the protective order motion.
  5. The court denied Plaintiff's fee request.

Key quotations

The Court DENIES the motion for failure to comply with Rule 11(c)(2). (at 421)
Madison offers no cognizable arguments that Weinstein’s claims should be dismissed.

Factual background

Plaintiff Peter D. Weinstein sued Defendant Jennifer Madison for libel and defamation. Madison, proceeding pro se, filed a series of duplicative motions seeking continuances, dismissal, a strike of the complaint, and a protective order. The court found Madison offered no cognizable arguments or supporting evidence for any of the motions.

Procedural history

The district court referred Defendant Madison's multiple motions to a magistrate judge, who recommended denial of all motions. The district judge adopted the recommendation and denied the motions.

Remand instructions

Return the case to the docket of the Honorable David A. Ezra for further proceedings.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…