Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wheat v. Fifth Third Bank

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

January 11, 2017

CURTIS WHEAT, Plaintiff,
v.
FIFTH THIRD BANK, Defendant.

          SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER

          Susan J. Dlott Judge

         On January 6, 2017, this Court issued an Order regarding the amount of reimbursable expenses that counsel of record, Sandra J. Fortson, Esq., has incurred in the course of prosecuting this litigation on behalf of her client, Plaintiff Curtis Wheat. (Doc. 142.) On that same date, Mr. Wheat sent an email to the Court's Law Clerk, to which he attached a seven-page letter to the Court dated January 5, 2017. In this unexpected and ex parte letter, Mr. Wheat challenged the bulk of Ms. Fortson's requests for reimbursement.

         The Court's January 6 Order was issued without prior review of Mr. Wheat's January 5 letter.[1] The Court has since considered the "troubling points" identified by Mr. Wheat regarding the materials submitted by Ms. Fortson for review. Coincidentally, many of them were addressed by the Court, sua sponte, in the original Order. Two categories, however, require supplementation.

         First, regarding Travel, Lodging, and Parking, specifically 10-11 January 2012 (FBA Admissions Ceremony'): The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Ms. Fortson was admitted to practice in the State of Ohio on November 7, 1988. Accordingly, she was required to seek admission as a permanent member of the bar of this Court when she formally undertook representation of Mr. Wheat. See S.D. Ohio Civ. R, 83.3(b), (e). Her expenses, therefore, are reimbursable.

         Second, regarding Psychologist/Expert: Based on the materials submitted by Ms. Fortson, the Court did not allow this $32, 200.00 expense. (Doc. 142atPageID 1659-61.) Mr. Wheal's remarks, though, have escalated the Court's concern as to possible questionable conduct on the part of Ms. Fortson. The Court reaffirms its initial determination, concluding now that under no circumstance should this expense be allowed.

         The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Supplemental Order by regular, U.S. Mail to Plaintiff Curtis Wheat.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] The Court's Law Clerk was absent from Chambers on January 6, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.