Kindig v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.

971 F. Supp. 2d 37, 2013 WL 5290125, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134944
District Court, District of Columbia·Decided September 20, 2013·No. Civil Action No. 2010-1919·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ALAN KAY, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Ms. Marion Kindig (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Kindig”) sued Defendant Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. (“Defendant” or ‘Whole Foods”) for personal injuries arising out of an alleged slip and fall incident in the parking lot of a Whole Foods store. This routine slip and fall case has a protracted history with close to three years of delays, disputes, and drama. Plaintiff elected to proceed pro se after dismissing her attorney accusing him of fraud, utilized a variety of delaying tactics, repeatedly used abusive and invective language in virtually every one of her filed pleadings and oral presentations in the Courtroom and during telephone status hearings, and made a number of serious allegations against Whole Foods and its counsel that were not proven. Plaintiff has made allegations of bias and prejudice and violations of the judicial rules of conduct against three judges, a U.S. District Court Judge, and two U.S. Magistrate Judges, who have presided over this case. The Plaintiff filed sanction motions for inconsequential and minor discovery disputes, leading the first trial judge to order the parties to no longer confer prior to filing discovery motions. The Plaintiff expressed interest in mediation on two occasions, but refused the presence of a pro bono attorney to assist her for mediation purposes, as provided in the local rules. Throughout this litigation, Plaintiff treated her former attorney, the Defendant, and Defendant’s counsel, with an utter lack of respect and decorum. This Court set firm trial dates on two occasions, the first in April 2013, which was canceled due to Plaintiffs sudden, unexplained illness, and the second in August 2013, which was again canceled due to Plaintiffs representation that she had obtained trial counsel.

On August 27, 2013, the undersigned held a show cause hearing for Plaintiff to demonstrate why this case should not be dismissed because of her affirmative mis *40 representations about her attorney-client relationship with two attorneys and for her other failures to comply with the Court’s orders. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice. This memorandum opinion accompanies the oral order DISMISSING the case WITH PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

Ms. Marion Kindig sued Whole Foods for injuries she sustained following an alleged slip and fall incident as she was entering Whole Foods from the parking garage in November 2007. Notice of Removal, Ex. 2 [1-2] at ¶¶ 5-6. She initially filed suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and was represented by counsel. Notice of Removal [1] at 1; Notice of Appearance of Plaintiffs Counsel Beall [5]. Whole Foods subsequently removed the case to the United States District Court and the case was initially assigned to a U.S. District Judge. Notice of Removal, Ex. 6 [1-6] at 1. During the January 26, 2011, status conference, Plaintiffs counsel and counsel for Whole Foods signed a form consenting to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes. Consent to Proceed before U.S. Magistrate Judge for All Purposes [8]; Case Reassigned to Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson for All Purposes [9]. On March 17, 2011, Whole Foods filed a third-party complaint against USA Parking, served on Mr. Solomon Arega who owns USA Parking, seeking indemnification from USA Parking. 1 Third Party Complaint [12] ¶¶ 9-10. The third party complaint was held in abeyance pending arbitration required by the contract between Whole Foods and USA Parking. Order [60].

On April 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed pro se to vacate the consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge and declare it “null and void since it was obtained on the basis of a Fraud Upon The Court.” Pl.’s Mot. to Remove Attorney and Return Case to the District Judge [18] at 3. Plaintiff accused her attorney Mr. Beall of having “more than a cozy relationship between Mr. Beall and the Defense Counsel,” including accepting discovery responses from Whole Foods that Ms. Kin-dig found untrue, permitting Whole Foods to serve Ms. Kindig with “a paper blizzard of hundreds and hundreds of Interrogatories and Requests,” and altering her interrogatory responses. Id. at 4-7. Plaintiff wrote a letter demanding that her counsel withdraw from the case, which he did by a Motion to Withdraw. Id. at 7; Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel [13]. Ms. Kindig also alleged that her counsel consented to proceed before a Magistrate Judge without asking her or obtaining her consent, making the consent invalid. Pl.’s Mot. to Remove [18] at 8-9. The Magistrate Judge granted the Plaintiffs attorney’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw [13] and denied as moot Plaintiffs Motion to Remove Attorney and Return Case to the District Judge [18]. Magistrate Judge’s Minute Order, May 10, 2011. Plaintiff subsequently filed an interlocutory appeal of the Minute Order dated May 10, 2011, to the Court of Appeals. Notice of Interlocutory Appeal [28]. The Court of Appeals dismissed Ms. Kindig’s appeal, stating that the Magistrate Judge’s May 10, 2011, minute order was not a final, appeal-able order. United States Court of Appeals Order [41] at 1.

During the controversy as to which judicial officer would preside over the case, the parties also engaged in several discovery disputes. On May 10, 2011, Whole Foods filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Sup *41 plement Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Tangible Things, stating that Ms. Kindig did not timely respond and the responses she did provide were “woefully deficient.” Defi’s Mot. to Compel [21] at ¶¶ 5-6. In July, Whole Foods filed a Motion for Order for Physical Examination of Plaintiff Marion Kindig, seeking an independent medical examination (IME) because Ms. Kindig had placed her medical condition at issue. Def.’s Mot. for Physical Examination of PI. [84] at 7. Ms. Kindig had denied Whole Foods’ request for an IME, stating “I am not refusing to have a medical examination at the appropriate time. At this point, however, it is clearly inappropriate since we do not even know in which court the case will be.” Def.’s Mot. for Physical Examination of PI. Ex. 2 [34-4] at 2. Additionally, Whole Foods filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on Ms. Kindig’s failure to respond to Whole Foods’ Request for Admissions. Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. [35] at ¶ 4.

The Magistrate Judge granted Ms. Kin-dig’s Motion to Return the Case to the District Judge and vacated the consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge. Magistrate Judge’s Minute Order, Aug. 18, 2011; District Judge’s Minute Order Reassigning the Case, Aug. 24,2011.

Ms. Kindig subsequently filed a Motion that the District Judge Recuse Herself for Bian [sic] and Prejucice [sic] Under Rule 63 and Under the Canons of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1, Canon 2 and Canon 3 [62], Ms. Kindig stated that the District Judge “was apparently not pleased with having a slip and fall case dumped in her lap and made no bones about it” and that “[the District Judge] has an extreme bias and prejudice about having a slip and fall case in her Courtroom.” Id. [62] at 3-4.

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

Kindig v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 37, 2013 WL 5290125, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134944 (D.D.C. 2013).

971 F. Supp. 2d 37 (Kindig v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Judith E Haney
N.D. Alabama, 2022
Haney v. Schilling
N.D. Alabama, 2022
Stone v. U.S. Embassy Tokyo
District of Columbia, 2021