Capstick v. The Bank of New York Mellon

W.D. Washington

Capstick v. The Bank of New York Mellon

DecidedJune 26, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-00936

StatusUnknown

This text of Capstick v. The Bank of New York Mellon (Capstick v. The Bank of New York Mellon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Capstick v. The Bank of New York Mellon, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 WARD K. CAPSTICK, CASE NO. C23-0936JLR 11 Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER v. 12 THE BANK OF NEW YORK 13 MELLON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable 16 James L. Robart: 17 The court is in receipt of the pleading filed by pro se Plaintiff Ward K. Capstick 18 entitled “emergency ex-parte temporary restraining order.” (Compl. (Dkt. # 1) 19 (capitalization omitted).) Because the substance of this pleading is similar to that of a 20 complaint (see generally id.), and because Mr. Capstick used this pleading to commence 21 his case (see generally Dkt.), the court construes the pleading as Mr. Capstick’s 22 1 complaint. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that the 2 court liberally construes a pro se litigant’s pleadings).

3 If Mr. Capstick seeks a temporary restraining order, he must file a separate motion 4 requesting that relief. Mr. Capstick’s motion, if any, shall comply with the procedures set 5 forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 65(b). 6 See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that pro se litigants 7 must follow same rules of procedure that govern other litigants), overruled on other 8 grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 925, 928 (9th Cir. 2012). In

9 addition, Mr. Capstick must file a proposed order with his motion that complies with the 10 requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(1) (setting forth the requirements 11 for an order granting injunctive relief) and Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 65(b)(4) 12 (requiring that the movant “include a proposed order specifically setting forth the relief 13 requested and describing in reasonable detail the act or acts to be restrained or required”).

14 See also Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(1) (noting that a party must file a proposed 15 order in conjunction with a motion). 16 Filed and entered this 26th day of June, 2023. 17 RAVI SUBRAMANIAN Clerk of Court 18 s/ Ashleigh Drecktrah 19 Deputy Clerk

20 21 22

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 WARD K. CAPSTICK, CASE NO. C23-0936JLR 11 Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER v. 12 THE BANK OF NEW YORK 13 MELLON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable 16 James L. Robart: 17 The court is in receipt of the pleading filed by pro se Plaintiff Ward K. Capstick 18 entitled “emergency ex-parte temporary restraining order.” (Compl. (Dkt. # 1) 19 (capitalization omitted).) Because the substance of this pleading is similar to that of a 20 complaint (see generally id.), and because Mr. Capstick used this pleading to commence 21 his case (see generally Dkt.), the court construes the pleading as Mr. Capstick’s 22 1 complaint. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that the 2 court liberally construes a pro se litigant’s pleadings).

3 If Mr. Capstick seeks a temporary restraining order, he must file a separate motion 4 requesting that relief. Mr. Capstick’s motion, if any, shall comply with the procedures set 5 forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 65(b). 6 See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that pro se litigants 7 must follow same rules of procedure that govern other litigants), overruled on other 8 grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 925, 928 (9th Cir. 2012). In

9 addition, Mr. Capstick must file a proposed order with his motion that complies with the 10 requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(1) (setting forth the requirements 11 for an order granting injunctive relief) and Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 65(b)(4) 12 (requiring that the movant “include a proposed order specifically setting forth the relief 13 requested and describing in reasonable detail the act or acts to be restrained or required”).

14 See also Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(1) (noting that a party must file a proposed 15 order in conjunction with a motion). 16 Filed and entered this 26th day of June, 2023. 17 RAVI SUBRAMANIAN Clerk of Court 18 s/ Ashleigh Drecktrah 19 Deputy Clerk

20 21 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Capstick v. The Bank of New York Mellon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capstick-v-the-bank-of-new-york-mellon-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack