Chandler v. Long Falls Paperboard, LLC
Opinion
lie cor UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED DISTRICT OF VERMONT 2024 JAN 1S AM 9 □□ CHARLES CHANDLER, ) ay CLERK
Plaintiff, att Vv. Case No. 2:23-cv-206 LONG FALLS PAPERBOARD LLC,
_ Defendant. )
ORDER ON FILING INJUNCTION (Docs. 6, 12, 19, 21) Plaintiff Charles Chandler (“Mr. Chandler”) filed a complaint against Defendant Long Falls Paperboard, LLC (“Long Falls Paperboard’’) in this Court on July 17, 2023 alleging retaliatory discharge. (Doc. 1). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 6). In that motion, Long Falls Paperboard argued that Mr. Chandler’s claim is not justiciable because “[Mr. Chandler] has previously been enjoined from filing complaints in this Court without first receiving prior leave from the Court.” (Doc. 6 at 6, referencing Chandler v. Suntag, No. 1:11-CV-02, 2011 WL 2559878, at *9 (D. Vt. June 28, 2011).) Defendant repeated this argument in its motion to dismiss Mr. Chandler’s amended complaint. (Doc. 12 at 6.) Mr. Chandler did not address this argument in his response brief (Doc. 18), which Long Falls Paperboard pointed out in its reply brief (Doc. 19 at 3-4). Mr. Chandler filed a motion for leave to file a sur-reply. (Doc. 21.) In that motion, Mr. Chandler’s attorney argued that he interpreted the filing injunction as applying specifically to pro se lawsuits brought by Mr. Chandler in the District of Vermont. (/d. at 1.) In a text-only order, the court granted Mr. Chandler’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply. (Doc. 22.)
Althonuogs hur -rhesapb leyefi nl ethdec, o ufirntthd astht e fi liinnugjn ctdiooennso t apptlotyh eci rucmstanocfthe iscs a sTehfi.el iinngj u nacrtoii sntoehcn eo ntoefMx rt. Chandrlpeeeteradan' dsa ubsipvrseeofi li.nS geCseh adlnrev S.u ntNaog1.l,:1 -CV2-10012 , WL2 5598at7 *89(, D.V tJu.n 2e8 2,10 1H)e.r Mer,C.h nadliersre prebsyae nn taetdt orney
admitotp trceiatdeci nth Dei storfVie crmotn t. oUftne hafi wlariienn gj unwchctihiin soo nw ovteer ny eaorltshde ,c oupretir tmptleadi nctoiuffntossfi elalena mendceodm pl(aDionct.. 13)T.ham ee ndceodm plisasui bnjtteoa cm to ttiodo ins mriasigsss uibnstiasnstuievse concetrninhsgeu fficoifpe lntaciiyff'nal sl egtahathtie bo rnosu higsshaf te ctyo nc tetornh se attenotfhis io ne mpl(oDyo1ec2 r.M). r. C.h andanldeh ric so unarseee nlt itttolh ededaii yrn coucornetcrni nthge v iaboifhil csil tya Siomo .gnl a sh eir se prebsyae nantt toerndteh ey , filing idnojneuosrnt ec qtihuoiintorm s e e elkev aeo fc outrfiotl a ec omplaint. DataeBtdu rliintng htDeoi ns,to rfVi ecrmto tnht1i,t9s hd aoyfJ anua2ry0,2 4. �--:::)
GeoffWr.eC yr awfCohriJdeu,fd ge UniStteadDt iesstrC iocutr t
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Chandler v. Long Falls Paperboard, LLC (Chandler v. Long Falls Paperboard, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.