West Village Michigan, LLC v. Candice Tayler, et al.
This text of West Village Michigan, LLC v. Candice Tayler, et al. (West Village Michigan, LLC v. Candice Tayler, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
WEST VILLAGE MICHIGAN, LLC, Case No. 24-cv-13307 Honorable David M. Lawson Plaintiff, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
v.
CANDICE TAYLER, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER STRIKING FILING (ECF NO. 35) AND RESOLVING PENDING MOTIONS (ECF NOS. 31, 34, 33)
Plaintiff West Village Michigan, LLC, sues Defendants Candice Tayler and Powerful Sky Real Estate Management, LLC, for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), conversion, fraud, and misappropriation. ECF No. 1. The Honorable David M. Lawson referred the case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 11. The parties filed several motions, and the Court held a status conference on December 8, 2025. Tayler’s attorney, Richard Delonis, moved to withdraw as counsel because of a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. ECF No. 33.
The Court GRANTS Delonis’s motion. Tayler moved for appointment of counsel, claiming that she cannot afford one. ECF No. 34. As explained during the conference, in civil
cases, “there are no funds appropriated to pay a lawyer or to even reimburse a lawyer’s expense.” Clarke v. Blais, 473 F. Supp. 2d 124, 125 (D. Me. 2007). Her motion is thus DENIED. While Tayler may proceed pro se on her own behalf, she may not represent Powerful Sky. See Bischoff v.
Waldorf, 660 F. Supp. 2d 815, 820 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (“A corporation must appear by counsel or not at all.”). If Tayler fails to retain an attorney for Powerful Sky within 30 days, West Village may seek the appropriate relief
against Power Sky. Tayler also filed a proposed consent judgment setting out a settlement offer. ECF No. 35. That document is an improper filing and is STRICKEN.1
1 Because the parties agreed during the status conference that they wished to engage in settlement discussions, the Court contacted the pro se clinic to address whether it would assist Tayler with those discussions. The pro se clinic agreed to help Tayler if she qualifies for its assistance. Tayler should contact the pro se clinic by email at proseclinic@udmercy.edu to apply for its assistance. Last, West Village moved to compel defendants’ production of documents, including text messages and emails, bank account statements,
and tax returns. ECF No. 31, PageID.112. West Village’s motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. As stated during the conference, Tayler must produce by December 31, 2025:
• Text messages with Stella; • Text messages and emails with Younnes, Mroueh, Abbas, Dwaik, and Moaaz; and
• Full bank records from 2024 and 2025 for accounts ending in 0050 and 6282. Tayler’s supplemental production must include an updated discovery response signed as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g).
Tayler already produced her tax return for 2024, ECF No. 31, PageID.112, and the Court denies West Village’s request for her to produce tax return records for other years.
The Court also extends the scheduling order by 30 days. Discovery must be completed by January 28, 2026, and dispositive motions must be filed by March 2, 2026. s/Elizabeth A. Stafford ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD United States Magistrate Judge Dated: December 10, 2025
NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. “When an objection is filed to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling
remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.2. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on December 10, 2025.
s/Davon Allen DAVON ALLEN Case Manager
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
West Village Michigan, LLC v. Candice Tayler, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-village-michigan-llc-v-candice-tayler-et-al-mied-2025.