Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-613 - Evans v. Northeast Ohio Cardiovascular Specialists, Inc.


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-613 - Evans v. Northeast Ohio Cardiovascular Specialists, Inc.
January 17, 2017
PDF | More
Memorandum of Opinion and Order The Court grants Plaintiff Ann Evans' pro se Motion to Reopen Case (ECF No. 15). Defendant shall reply or otherwise respond to Plaintiff Ann Evans' pro se Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff's pro se Motion to disqualify attorneys is denied (ECF No. 15); Motion for extension of time of 30 days for Plaintiff to find alternative counsel is denied as moot (ECF No. 15); Motion for sanctions is denied (ECF No. 15); denies as moot or not otherwise actionable Plaintiff's pro se Motion for Order (ECF No. 15); denies as moot or not otherwise actionable Plaintiff's pro se Motion (ECF No. 20); denies as moot or not otherwise actionable Plaintiff's pro se Motion (ECF No. 21); denies as moot or not otherwise actionable Plaintiff's pro se Motion (ECF No. 22); denies as moot or not otherwise actionable Plaintiff's pro se Motion (ECF Court, as it reveals settlement terms. See Order for additional information and requirements. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 1/17/2017. (JLG) No. 25); and denies pro se Plaintiff Ann Evans request (ECF No. 25). The Court grants the Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel (ECF No. 16) and denies as moot the Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiff Ann Evan[s'] Pro Se Motion (ECF No. 17). Because the Court has ruled on Plaintiff Ann Evans' pro se motions, the request at ECF No. 17 is denied as moot. The Court grants Defendant and Attorney Morley's motion to retroactively seal the pro se motions and addendum filed by Plaintiff Ann Evans (ECF Nos. 15, 19, 20, 21, and 22), the responsive pleadings filed by Attorney Wido and The Spitz Law Firm (ECF Nos. 16, 17), and the responsive pleading filed by Defendant and Attorney Morley (ECF No. 18). Having ruled on Plaintiff's pro se motions in this writing, the Court denies as moot Defendant and Attorney Morley's motion to require all future responsive filings to be filed under seal. Additionally, to the extent that Defendant and Attorney Morley seek leave to file opposition to Plaintiff Ann Evans' pro se motions and to file any opposition under seal, the request is denied as moot. If good reason is provided, the Court will consider Defendant's motion for leave to file under seal its response to Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff's most recent filing, including attachments, ECF No. 25, is hereby sealed by order of the