IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS

WILMINGTON TRUST N.A.,

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 14-CV-86P

vs. ) Division

) K.S.A.Chapter 60

ERIC MUATHE, )

Defendant, )

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS

COMES NOW, the Defendant, Eric M. Muathe, as himself and Pro-Se who files this

Motion for Sanctions based on the following two main reasons:

(a) Plaintiffs Attorneys Repeated Failure

To Mail Defendant Court Filings/Pleadings

1. It has come to Defendant's attention that since January 25th, 2018 Plaintiff has filed

several pleadings with this court WITHOUT ANY SUCH PLEADINGS/FILINGS BEING

MAILED TO DEFENDANT.

Page 10f11
2. Defendant just became aware of the filing of these pleadings, around June 12th,

2018, when a case summary docket print out of this case was attached to a pleading

in a currently pending federal court case styled Eric Muathe vs. Wells Fargo Bank

N.A. et al. CASE NO. 2:18-cv-02064-CM-JTT.

3. The said docket printout - labeled "Exhibit B" - is attached to this motion. Defendant

is not aware if any other pleadings have been filed by the Plaintiff, or the Court,

since the June Lst, 2018 date of the above mentioned docket print out.

4. Since January 25th, 2018 it appears that the Plaintiffs counsel have filed the

following pleadings: [April 20th, 2018] Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, [April

27th, 2018] Proposed Second Amended Scheduling Order, [May Ist, 2018] Proposed

Second Amended Scheduling Order, [May 30th, 20 18]Plaintiff Wilmington Trusts

Motion For Summary Judgment on Muathe's Counterclaim, and [May 31st, 2018]

Plaintiffs Memo in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.

5. Since January 25th, 2018 no service, or notice, of Plaintiffs pleadings have

been sent to Defendant.

6. Defendant strongly objects to this practice by Plaintiffs counsel.

7. Defendant requests this court to strike all pleadings filed by Plaintiff, and Plaintiffs

attorneys, since January 25th, 2018 and bar the Plaintiff from refilling the same.

8. This is not the first time that pleadings have not been sent to Defendant.

Attorney Matthew Hubbard similarly had not been mailing hard copy Pleadings to

Defendant as per his certificate of services. Attorney Matthew Hubbard does not

dispute this fact. The difference being that attorney Matthew Hubbard had sent

Page 2 of11
 Defendant a copy of his court fillings via email but neglected to send hard copies as

per his certificate of service. See attached em ail communication.

9. Here no service of filed pleadings of any kind have been sent to Defendant since

January 25th, 2018.

10. KS.A 60-205 States:

Service and filing of pleadings and other papers. (a) Service; when required.
(1) In general. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, each of the
following papers must be served on every party:
(A) An order stating that service is required;
(B) a pleading filed after the original petition, unless the court orders
otherwise under subsection (c) because there are numerous defendants;
(C) a discovery paper required to be served on a party, unless the court
orders otherwise;
(D) a written motion, except one that may be heard ex parte; and
(E) a written notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment or any similar
paper.

11. KS.A 60-205 (b)(2)(C) (b) States:

Service; how made 0 (2) Service in general. A paper is served under this
section by 0 (C) mailing it to the person's last known address, in which event
service is complete upon mailing;

12. KS.A 60-205 states "papers must be served on every party".

13. Defendant's mailing address has not changed. Even though Defendant would prefer

hard copies of pleadings - Defendant's email address has not changed.

14. In sum, Defendant has a statutory right to receive a copy of the motions/pleadings

Plaintiff filed. This also incorporates the basic constitutional due process

requirement of notice. Defendant has a right to respond and to request oral

argument on any pleading prior to a judge ruling on it. Failure of Plaintiff to serve

copies of the above mentioned pleadings since January 25th, 2018 violates

Page 3 of II
 Defendant's statutory rights. Such a violation is not harmless because it is done in

bad faith and subjects Defendant to losing his property and counterclaims without

the constitutional right of due process and with no opportunity to present his

disagreement to the district court.

15. Too many pleadings, stretching a period of many months, have not been sent to

Defendant and assuming the certificates of service stated that pleadings were sent

to Defendant then no excusable neglect argument should be entertained by this

court.

16. Without being given notice, as per K.S.A60-205, Defendant would have no way of

knowing the up-to-date status of the pending case and that it causes substantial

prejudice in the litigation.

17. The basic elements of procedural due process are notice and an opportunity to be

heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Winston v. Kansas Dept. of

SRS, 274 Kan. 396,409,49 P.3d 1274, cert. denied 537 U.S. 1088 (2002)

18. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the United States-as the

Due Process Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States-from

depriving any person of property without due process of law. U.S.Const. Amends. V,

XIV;see Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 167 (2002).

19. As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in

Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335,20 L.Ed. 646 (1872), '[w]here there is no jurisdiction,

there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction.'

20. Subject matter jurisdiction is vested by statute or constitution and establishes the

court's authority to hear and decide a particular type of action. Parties cannot confer

Page 4 of 11
 subject matter jurisdiction upon the courts by consent, waiver, or estoppel. Parties

cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction by failing to object to the court's lack of

jurisdiction. If a trial court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it has

absolutely no authority to reach the merits of the case and is required as a matter of

law to dismiss it. Kingsley v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 288 Kan. 390, 395, 204 P.3d

562 (2009).

21. Defendant also believes that failure to follow K.S.A60-205 violates the Kansas rules

of professional conduct - in particular rule 226 - 3.4 Advocate: Fairness to Opposing

Party and Counsel.

22. This Court should consider sanctions on Plaintiffs attorneys since this practice of

failure to notice Defendant has been going on ever since Lathrop Gage LLP joined

the case.

23. It is apparent that severe sanctions are needed due to failure to serve defendant

even after Defendant filed attorney ethics complaints against Lathrop Gage LLP

attorneys where this failure to follow the certificate of service issue was brought up .

This is an abuse of the process and is calculated willful, bad faith, practice aimed at

winning the case without affording the opposing party an opportunity to respond.

(b) Failure To Follow This Court's "Production of Documents" Order

24. Defendant filed a Motion to Compel discovery on, or around, July 14th, 2017 with

an oral arguments hearing held on July 27th, 2017 where the court ordered that the

Plaintiff produce certain documents. This Motion to Compel Discovery meet the

requirements ofK.S.A. 60- 237(a) following Defendant's - email documented - good

faith attempts to confer and attempt to resolve discovery differences.

Page 5 of11
25. After the July 27th, 2017 hearing on, or around, August 3rd, 2017 the Plaintiffs

attorney sent Defendant a proposed order that did not include the Court's order for

Plaintiff to produce certain documents. On, and around, August 18th, 2017

Defendant failed an objection (which is attached to this motion) with the Court

highlighting that the Plaintiffs attorney had neglected to include the order to

produce documents in the proposed order.

26. On, or around, September 15th, 2017 Plaintiffs attorney revised the order in an

email (which is attached to this motion) that stated:

Dear Judge Smith:

Attached is a revised proposed order for your review regarding your rulings
at the hearing on July 27, 2017, regarding the case of: Wilmington Trust, N.A.
v. Eric Muathe (Case # 2014-CV-86-P).
We have incorporated the items Mr. Muathe requested be included in the
proposed order (see the additions at end of paragraph 5 ofthe revised
proposed order).

Sincerely,
Matt Hubbard
Counsel for Plaintiff

27. The written order (which is attached to this motion) correctly included the portion

ordering Plaintiff to produce the documents states on paragraph 5 that:

Plaintiff is required to respond to Defendant's requests for: (1) acceleration

notices that may have been sent to Defendant, (2) an affidavit of publication
pursuant to K.S.A.60-302, and (3) the amount of attorney's fees (including
attorney's fees incurred prior to this case) that Plaintiff claims are owed by
Defendant.

Page 6 of11
28. To this date Defendant has not received this documents which constitutes failure to

comply with the court order.

29. More than 10 months have passed since this Court ordered Plaintiff to produce the

above mentioned documents.

30. There can be no excuse for Plaintiffs failure to comply with the Court order that

stems from a motion to compel discover motion after Defendant had unsuccessfully

reached out several times to Plaintiffs counsel requesting said documents (and

others) over a period of many months.

31. As seen in Paragraphs 1-23 (above) It now appears that Plaintiff has proceeded to

advance the case forward, without notice to Defendant since January 25th, 2018 -

including filing a motion for summary Judgment, even though Plaintiff knows very

well that it had not followed the Court order, and not to mention that response to a

summary judgment motion would be improper, and untimely until discovery was

completed.

32. The Court should take note that on, or around, July 25th, 2016, the Defendant had

filed a motion pursuant to KS.A 60-256(f) effectively putting a stay on having to

respond to Plaintiffs June 30thMotion for Summary Judgment until discovery was

completed.

33. In all discovery disputes, the parties should confer and attempt to resolve their

differences. If a person fails to respond to or allow discovery, the requesting party

may file a motion asking the courtto compel a response. KS.A. 60-237(a). If

discovery is still not provided in response to an order that compels discovery, the

court may consider more severe sanctions as set forth in KS.A. 60-237(b).

Page 7 of 11
34. Sanctions are proper here pursuant to K.S.A60-237.

35. The imposition of sanctions for failure to comply with discovery orders is a matter

within the sound discretion of the district court. The decision to impose sanctions

will not be overturned unless that discretion has been abused. Shay v. State Dept. of

Transportation, 265 Kan. 191, 194, 959 P.2d 849 (1998).

36. [T]he party claiming excusable neglect has the burden to plead and prove it. See Lee

v. Brown, 210 Kan. 168, 170,499 P.2d 1076 (1972). The court observed thatthe

issue of whether a party's conduct constitutes excusable neglect should be decided

on a case-by-case basis, and consideration should be given to whether the party's

conduct reflects neglectful indifference or reckless indifference. Reliance Insurance

Companies v. Thompson-Hayward Chemical Co., 214 Kan. 110, 116-17,519 P.2d 730

(1974). See Mid Kansas Fed'[ Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Burke, 233 Kan. 796, 798-99,

666 P.2d 203 (1983).

37. [S]anctions directed to counsel rather than the plaintiff may have been entirely

appropriate. see Burkhart v. Philsco Products Co., 241 Kan. 562, 576-77, 738 P.2d 433

(1987).

38. The Kansas Supreme Court in Canaan v. Bartee (86406) (2001) added that: The

district court also cited: S.E.c. v. McNulty, 137 F.3d 732, 740 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied

sub nom, Shanklin v. S.E.c., 525 U.S.931 (1998) (affirming a finding that excusable

neglect had not been shown when a default was granted due to an attorney's

inaction, but the defaulting party made no attempt to contact his attorney over an

11-month period); Harmon v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 110 F.3d 364,368-69 (6th

Cir.), cert. denied 522 U.S.868 (1997) (dismissal warranted, despite no

Page 8 ofll
 consideration of lesser sanctions, where attorney's conduct was "contumacious");

Florida Physician's Ins. Co., Inc. v. Ehlers, 8 F.3d 780, 784 (11th Cir. 1993) (finding

plaintiff made extensive efforts to notify defendant and finding that defendant had a

duty to act with some diligence to ensure that his attorney was protecting his

interests); Comiskey v.]FT] Corp., 989 F.2d 1007, 1010 (8th Cir. 1993) ("'A [party]

chooses counsel at his [or her] peril'" and "'Counsel's disregard of his [or her]

professional responsibilities can lead to extinction of his [or her] client's claims."';

Damiani v. Rhode Island Hosp., 704 F.2d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 1983).

39. Here the Plaintiffs attorney has shown a gross disregard to noticing Plaintiffs of

their Court filings/pleadings, while at the same time disregarding this Court's order.

REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff requests oral arguments pursuant in part to Supreme Court Rule 133(c)(1).

Supreme Court Rule 133(c)(1) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 198) provides: "A party may

request oral argument-either in the motion or in a response filed by the adverse

party."

WHEREFORE, Defendant Prays for an order of severe sanctions directed towards

Plaintiff, and/or, Plaintiffs attorneys, including dismissing the case, or for any other

just and proper order.

Page 9 of 11
 Respectfully submitted,
By:Frl0~
Eric M. Muathe
1410 Bitner Terrace, Pittsburg, Kansas, 66762
(913) 980-7286 < muathedotcom@gmail.com >

Page 10 of 11
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on June 13, 2018 the foregoing was mailed via PRIORITY mail- with
tracking - to the following address:

CLERK OF THE COURT

602 NORTH LOCUST
PITTSBURG, KS 66762

I certify that on June 13, 2018 the foregoing was mailed via first class mail to the
following address:

JEHAN K. MOORE,
C/O LATHROP GAGE LLP,
2345 GRAND BLVD., STE. 2200
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2618

Eric M. Muathe
1410 Bitner Terrace, Pittsburg, Kansas, 66762
(913) 980-7286
muathedotcom@gmail.com

Page 11 ofll
Case 2:18-cv-02064-CM-TJJ Document 11-2 Filed 06/01/18 Page 1 of 4

EXHIBITB
 Case 2:18-cv-02064-CM-TJJ Document 11-2 Filed 06101/18 Page 2 of 4
5/31/2018 Case Summary

2014·cv~O')OO[l6·l;;: Wilmi. gton Trust COlnpan~'VS. Erlc jv, !vfuothe; etal.

DISTRICT C)Ui(.TS - Crawfof0-?ittsnurg Di;;~';'t Court

Case Number 2014-CV-000086-P Plaintiff Wilmington Trust Company

Case Type Mortgage Foreclosure Defendant Eric M Muathe et al
Opened Judge Richard M Smith - Division SMITHR
Status Active
B Show/Hide Participants

Plaintiff[s] Counsel of Record

Wilmington Trust Company Jehan !<amil Moore
1270 Northland Dr #200 2345 Grand Ave Suite 2200
Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Kansas City, MO 64108-2684
(816) 292-2000

Michael J Abrams
2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 2800
Kansas City, MO 64108-2684
(816) 292-2000

Defendant[s] Counsel of Record

Eric M Muathe Pro Se
1410 Bitner Terrace
Pittsburg, KS 66762
(913) 980-7286
muathedotcom@gmail.com

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc

1901 E Vorhees Street, Suite C
Danville, IL 61834

Citimortgage Inc
C/O The Corporation Company

GB Home Equity LLC

C/O National Registration Agents Inc Of KS

File Date Case History

Petition Filed Document ID Number: 249079
OB-1i·20t4 2 Request For Service Form Document ID Number: 249081
08.:jl-20.!.4 3 Summons Issued to Crawford County SODocument ID Number: 249083
OiH.f··.D'" 3 Summons Issued Back to Attny for ServiceDocument ID Number: 249090
03·~··r·H Summons Served/Returned Personal Service on Unknown Occupant on August 13 2014Document ID Number: 249575
08-:+2-.114 Summons Served/Returned Personal Service on Eric Muathe on August 13 2014Document ID Number: 249576
{]S-:~·'0;4 Summons Returned/No Service on Unknown Spouse of Eric Muathe Document ID Number: 249577
ce-is-zor- MemorandumDocument ID Number: 250021
08-J5-2014 Assignment OrderDocument ID Number: 250022
(J.S·2.i -2014 Clerks fourteen Day Extention of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs Petition Document ID Number: 250299
Mail Returned On GB Home Equity LLC Updated Address in Full Court and Remailed Assignment OrderDocument ID Number; 250525
Defendants Objection To Judicial Assignment Document ID Number: 251057
Defendants Motion To Dismiss WIth Memorandum Incorporated Document ID Number: 252730
U>l'l·2;H-, Request For Service Form Document ID Number: 253076
(J~-18-2(J14 Alias Summons Issued Back to Attny for Service Document ID Number: 253077
1(f~1,."';-20.t4 Certificate of Service Document ID Number: 255353
HH4-10l4 Alias Summons Returned Served By Certified Mail on GB Home Equity on Sept 26 2014Document ID Number: 2.55354
11-17-2:)(4 Plaintiffs Request For Additional Time to Respomd to Defendants Motion to DismissDocument ID Number: 258466
Defendants Objection to Plaintiffs Untimely Request for Additionalllme to Respond to Defendants Motion to DismissDocument ID
1~-26-20L4
Number: 259867
12-01··2'1l1 Certificate of service Document ID Number: 259942 EXHIBIT B
12-01··,0 4 Certificate of Service Document ID Number: 259941
12-03'2014 Plaintiffs Request for Additional Time to Respond to Def. Motion to DismissDocument ID Number: 260240
12-J3 ~014 Order Granting Plaintiffs Request for Additional Time to Respond to Defendants Motion to DismissDocument ID Number: 260241
11"{)3-2; )4 Supplemental Objection to Plaintiffs Untimely Request for Additional Time to Respond to Defendants Motion to DismissDocument ID

httpsJldistrictfiler.kscourts.org/notify/cmsFuIlHistory_html?pageAction=QueryCmsFuIIHist&notifierCaselnfold=307157&caseNumber=2014-CV-000086-P&companyld=·
 Case 2:18-cv-02064-CM-TJJ Document 11-2 Filed 06/01/18 Page 3 of 4
5/31/2018 Case Summary

Number: 260402
12-()9-20t4 Designation of Lead CounselDocument ID Number: 261178
12-11-20l4 Plaintiffs Suggestions in Opposition To Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs PetitionDocument 1D Number: 261278
12-19-20H Defendants Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing Document ID Number: 262228
OZ-()9-2015 Generated from document Case Mgmt Conf filed Feb 9, 2015
02-20-2015 Assignment Order-Hen. Janice RusseliDocument ID Number: 268657
02-23-2015 Letter From Elaine BradshawDocument ID Number: 268679
04-<)2-2015 Letter from Judge RusseliDocument ID Number: 273382
OS-06-20t5 Motion For Disqualification of Judge Plus Request For Oral ArgumentsDocument ID Number: 277243
05-G6-2D1.5 Motion For Telephonic Hearing Document ID Number: 276733
05-08-2015 Objection to Hearing Document ID Number: 277678
05 08-2015
R
Notice of Filing of Motion of Disqualification Which is AttachedDocument ID Number: 277680
05-12-2015 Letter from Judge Wachter Document ID Number: 277842
OS-18··2015 Motion For Disqualification fo Judge Plus Affidavit in SupportDocument ID Number: 278982
OS-2020l5 Letter From Judge Robert Fleming Document ID Number: 280019
06-01-2()t5 Assignment No. 14 (Ward limited)Document ID Number: 280790
06-05-2015 Order Granting Change of JudgeDocument ID Number: 281703
06-15-2015 Designation of Lead Counsel Document ID Number: 282546
06-17-1.015 Assignment No 21 - Hon. Richard SmithDocument ID Number: 282840
07-13-2015 Notice Of HearingDocument ID Number: 285712
07-24-2015 Motion For ContinuanceDocument ID Number: 287139
07-24 2:l15 Motion For Disqualification of Judge Plus Request for Oral ArgumentsDocument ID Number: 287140
07-1+2015 Motion To Determine Jurisdiction Plus Request For Oral ArgumentsDocument ID Number: 287141
07-27-2015 Order Denying Change of Judge And Granting Request For Continuance. Copies Mailed to all parties. Document ID Number: 287332
08-10-2015 Motion For Disqualification of Judge Plus Affidavit in Support Document ID Number: 288949
1(J-()~-2Gi 5 Designation of Lead Counsel Document ID Number: 295032
12-11-20[5 OrderDocument ID Number: 302145
12·23-2015 Assignment No. 15 (Creitz Iimited)Document ID Number: 303278
OHJ4-2016 Certificate of Service Document ID Number: 303884
CH)·H0i6 Order For Further Findings And Counterclaim Document ID Number: 303885
01-21-20!6 Letter From Eric MuatheDocument ID Number: 305710
01-25-20!(; Response to Requet For Clarification Document ID Number: 306073
01-27-2016 letter Pursuant to KSA 60 237 Objecting Premature Discovery Document ID Number: 306510
02-01-2;)16 Supplemental Motion For Disqualifiction Of Judge Richard Smith Document ID Number: 306970
02-16-1016 Defendants Motion to Stay Discovery Document ID Number: 308550
02·29-2016 Order Overruling Defendants Motion For Disqualification Document ID Number: 309806
02-29-?Oi6 Plaintiffs Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant Eric Muathe's Motion To Stay Discovery Document 10 Number; 309807
0'\··05-20(6 Notice Of HearingDocument ID Number: 313856
04-{)7-2016 Letter From Eric Muathe to Elaine BradshawDocument 10 Number: 313928
04-1)7-101.6 Motion For ContinuanceDocument ID Number: 313930
04-<)7-2016 letter From Eric Muathe to Elaine Bradshaw Document ID Number: 313932
(H-..17- 1016 Motion For ContinuanceDocument ID Number: 313933
04-11-2016 Plaintiffs Response To Defendants Motion For ContinuanceDocument ID Number: 314232
04-1.::·;1.0,,6 Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion For Continuance Document ID Number: 315662
04-28-20(6 Order on Pending Motion Document ID Number: 316128
05-06-211;6 Letter Requesting Clarification and Request For 30 Day Extension to File Answer and/or CounterclaimDocument ID Number: 317492
05-1l\-20t6 Clerks Fourteen Day Extention of Time To File An Answer and/or CounterclaimDocument ID Number: 317445
05-12-2016 letter From Eric Muathe Requesting "Answer/Counterclaim" To Be Filed In The Case FileDocument ID Number: 318084
05-12-201c Answer to Petition + Counterclaim Document ID Number: 318087
Order On Letter Requesting Clarificaton and Request for 30 day extension to File Answer/or CounterclaimDocument ID Number:
05-19-2016
318816
06-02-2016 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Eric Muathe's Answer/Counterclaim MOT: Motion (Generic)
06-02-2016 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike Answer and Counterclaim INF: Memorandum
06-14-2016 Notice of Hearing Motion to Strike NOT: Notice - No Service Required
06-22-2016 Letter Dated June 21 2016 to Clerk of the CourtDocument ID Number: 323166
0,,-22·2016 Response to Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendants Answer/Counter Claim Document ID Number: 323168
Letter Dated June 272016 To Clerk of the CourtDocument ID Number: 323170
06-27-2016 Amended Answer to Petition + Counterclaim Document ID Number: 323172
06-29-2016 Military Service Affidavit AFF: Affidavit (Generic)
06-30-2;).'.6 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment MOT: Summary Judgment
07-07-201(; Scheduling OrderDocument ID Number: 323998
07-1.1.-2016 Letter Dated July 7th 2016 to Clerk of the CourtDocument ID Number: 324258
07-J.i ~Y)t6 Objection to Proposed Scheduling OrderDocument ID Number: 324259

https:lldistrictfiler.kscourts.org/notify/cmsFuIIHistory.html?pageAction=QueryCmsFuIIHist&notifierCaselnfold=307157&caseNumber=2014-CV-000086-P&companyld=·
 Case 2:18-cv-02064-CM-TJJ Document 11-2 Filed 06/01/18 Page 4 of 4
5/31/2018 Case Summary

Second Amended Answer to Petition + Counterdaim Document ID Number: 324260

07-/$-21)16 Letter From Eric MautheDocument ID Number: 325920

07-2S";Dl6 Defendants Response to Plainiffs Motion for Summary Judgment Requesting Continuance or Extension of Time to Respond Under
KSA 60-256(f) with Affidavit IncorporatedDocument ID Number: 325921
0;;-01- 2~116 Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims MOT: Dispositive
02-0'1.·.;201& Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Mtn to Dismiss Counterclaim INF: Memorandum
oP- 5-1116' Request for Statement of Monetary Damages MOT: Motion (Generic)
Certificate of Service INF: Information (Generic)
Motion For Sanctions and Request For Oral ArgumentsDocument ID Number: 328471
Motion To Determine the Nature and cause of Summons and Request For Oral ArgumentsDocument ID Number: 328473

C-8-2..:t-2r)16 Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant Eric Muathe's Counterclaims and Request for Oral
ArgumentsDocument ID Number: 329154
Notice of Withdrawl of Counsel And Entry of Appearance of Substituted CounselDocument 10 Number: 329343
Motion for Extension of Time MOT: Motion (Generic)
Response To Plaintiff's Request For Statement of Monetary Damages And Request for Oral ArgumentsDocument1D Number: 329637
()9-\,: 9·2-J 1(: Notice Of HearingDocument ID Number: 330982
09-1 ~. --2-116 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Discovery Request MOT: Motion (Generic)
,)9"15-;2")16 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order MOT: Motion (Generic)
09-3,j-2016 Plaintiff's Second Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond MOT: Motion (Generic)
j lJ-(i'rL'J16 Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time ORO: Order - No Service Required
-! n·{j6~2.~l16 Order Granting Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery Requests ORO: Order· No Service Required
1(!~D.'~2;.l•.6 Order Granting Second Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respon ORD: Order - No Service Required
Amended Scheduling Order ORD: Order - No Service Required
Plaintiffs Unopposed Third Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise MOT: Motion (Generic)
Amended Assignment Order ORO: Order Originated by Judge
Order Granting Extension of Time to Respond ORO: Order - No Service Required
Certificate of Service DlS: Discovery (Generic)
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Amend the October 6, 2016, Scheduling Order MOT: Motion (Generic)
Second Amended Scheduling Order ORD: Order (Generic)
Certificate of Service DIS: Discovery (Generic)
Motion To Strike All of Plaintiffs Out of Time Second Discovery ResponsesDocument 10 Number: 366658
0'!"lJ ..2\~17 Notice of Hearing NOT: Notice - No Sheriff Service Required
{J7-14~ 2017 Motion to Compel Response to Discovery Document ID Number: 367924
07-·Z-1 2')17 Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel MOT: Response
D9--! 5- 11117 Defendants Objection to Proposed Order Document ID Number: 372850
F'-l =,..Lll' Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel and Entry of Appearance of Substituted Counsel NOT: Notice - No Sheriff Service Required
I}i-2 ;~lts Motion to Amend Scheduling Order MOT: Motion (Generic)
0l-25-J~ .:! Amended Scheduling Order ORD: Order (Generic)
O,-D}-2Jl~ Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs Motion To Amend Scheduling OrderDocument ID Number: 395135
J4-2,~-2:r13 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order MOT: Motion (Generic)
(;1,,27-2,' I (3 Proposed Second Amended Scheduling Order ORO: Order (Generic)
OS-v ...2(d8 Proposed Second Amended Scheduling Order ORO: Order (Generic)
:i~:';-Je~.~vHj Plaintiff Wilmington Trusts Motion for Summary Judgment on Muathe's Counterclaim MOT: Summary Judgment
GS·:; ~-2-,18 Plaintiffs Memo in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment INF: Memorandum
05-~:-'::_,.:1~ A INF: Exhibit
D'i-3 -2'J.8 B INF: Exhibit
05-~ <:U~3 C INF: Exhibit
05--3 2;j18 o INF: Exhibit
C5-3.-1OJ8 E INF: Exhibit
os-ar-zors F INF: Exhibit

https:lldistrictfiler.kscourts.org/notify/cmsFuIIHistory.html?pageAction=QueryCmsFuIlHist&notifierCaselnfold=307157&caseNumber=2014-CV-000086-P&companyld=
6/13/2018 Gmail - Wilmington v. Muathe: WF rfa answers, WF rfp responses, WF irag answers pdf

M Gmail Eric Muathe <muathedotcom@gmail.com>

---_._-- --------- - ------

Wilmington v. Muathe: WF ria answers, WF rip responses, WF irog answers pdf
----- - .. ----
Eric Muathe <muathedotcom@gmail.com> Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 1:05 PM
To: "Hubbard, Matthew (LG)" <MHubbard@lathropgage.com>

Good Afternoon Matt,

I have been waiting for your discovery responses via regular mail over the last few days I have NOT yet received anything* via regular mail as per your November 11th,
2016 certificate of service.

*The mailman just came by today - November 16th, 2016.

I have to, and will, object that there is a disturbing pattern you have now established right from the beginning where your certificates of service say you mailed a
pleading but it never arrives via regular mail, or even worse in one instant it was mailed several days well after the date stated on the certificate of service.

This is improper!

I have been busy with two federal cases and two Kansas court appeals (one moving to the KSC soon) so would like to take a look at your discovery responses but they
have NOT arrived in the mail as per your certificate of service.

Could you send the discover pleadings since I haven't received them.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Eric Muathe
[Quoted text hidden]

"And therefore our contemplation of this source, as the power which we want, gives us the ability to use that power. And the way we use this process is to contemplate
ourselves as surrounded by the conditions which we want to produce." - Thomas Troward.

Namaste,
Eric Muathe
CEO 1 Founder
Encare Financial Inc.
http://www.muathe.com
6/13/2018 Gmail - Wilmington v. Muathe: WF rfa answers, WF rfp responses, WF irag answers pdf

M Gmail Eric Muathe <muathedotcom@gmail.com>

---------------.- .. __ ._----- ---_ _-_ .. __ _._._._-_ .._----

..

Wilmington v. Muathe: WF ria answers, WF rip responses, WF irog answers pdf

Hubbard, Matthew (LG) <MHubbard@lathropgage.com> Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 1:13 PM

To: Eric Muathe <muathedotcom@gmail.com>

Eric:
We are fed-exing you the hard copies of the discovery pleadings and documents for overnight delivery. We get used to emailing everything these days and
sometimes forget that you have requested hard copies. Let me know if you have any questions.

t
Thanks,

Matt

From: Eric Muathe [mailto:muathedotcom@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 1:05 PM
To: Hubbard, Matt
Subject: Re: Wilmington v. Muathe: WF rfa answers, WF rfp responses, WF irog answers pdf

[Quoted text hidden]

 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS

WILMINGTONTRUST N.A., )

PLAINTIFF, ) CASENO. 2014 CV86P

Vs. )

ERIC M. MUATHE, )

DEFENDANT. )

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO PROPOSED ORDER

Pursuant to rules relating to District Courts rule 170 Defendant objects to the
proposed order from the July 27th, 2017 hearing in as much as it does not include
the Courts order that Plaintiff respond to Defendant's discovery requests for
production of:

1. Two acceleration notices that might have been sent to Defendant by servicer Wells
Fargo, or any other party.
2. Affidavit of publication pursuant to K.S.A60-307.
3. All Attorney fees (induding all Previous attorney fees) induded in the amount
claimed to be due to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Defendant asks the Court to amend Point number 7 of the proposed
order to reflect that there is some ongoing discovery as regards the three pending
discovery requested that the Court ordered during the July 27th, 2017 hearing.

Page 1 of2
 Respectfully submitted,
By:8n~~
Eric M. Muathe
1410 Bitner Terrace, Pittsburg, Kansas, 66762
(913) 980-7286 < muathedotcom@grnail.com >

CERTlFlCA TE OF SERVICE

I certify that on August 16th, 2017 the foregoing was emailed to Judge Richard
Smith at the following em ail address:srjudgerms@gmail.com

I certify that on August 16th, 2017 the foregoing was emailed to Plaintiffs attorney
Matt Hubbard at the following email address:jnelson@km-]aw.com

I certify that on August 16th, 2017 the foregoing was emailed to the Clerk of The
Court at the following email address: maryannf@l1thjd.org

I I certify that on August 16th, 2017 the foregoing was mailed via first class mail to
the following address:

CLERKOF THE COURT

602 NORTH LOCUST
PITTSBURG,KS66762

Eric M. Muathe
1410 Bitner Terrace, Pittsburg, Kansas, 66762

Page 2 of2
6/13/2018 Gmail- RE: Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. Eric Muathe (Case #2014CV86P) - (REVISED PROPOSED ORDER July 27,2017 Hearing)

M Gmail Eric Muathe <muathedotcom@gmail.com>

RE: Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. Eric Muathe (Case #2014CV86P). (REVISED PROPOSED ORDER July 27,2017
Hearing)
1 message
_ __ - ----_.
... .... ...

Hubbard, Matthew (LG) <mhubbard@lathropgage.com> Fri, Sep 15,2017 at 10:31 AM

To: "srjudgerms@gmail.com" <srjudgerms@gmail.com>, Mary Ann Forsythe <maryannf@11thjd.org>
Cc: "Eric Muathe (muathedotcom@gmail.com)" <muathedotcom@gmail.com>

Dear Judge Smith:

Attached is a revised proposed order for your review regarding your rulings at the hearing on July 27,2017, regarding the case of: Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. Eric
Muathe (Case # 2014-CV-86-P).

We have incorporated the items Mr. Muathe requested be included in the proposed order (see the additions at end of paragraph 5 of the revised proposed order).

Sincerely,
Matt Hubbard

Counsel for Plaintiff

Matt Hubbard
Partner
Lathrop Gage LLP
2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 2200
Kansas City, MO 64108-2618
Oirect: 816.460.5528
mhubbard@lathropgage.com

From: Hubbard, Matt

Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 2:30 PM
To: 'srjudgerrns@gmail.com'; 'Mary Ann forsythe'
Cc: Eric Muathe (muathedotcom@gmail.com)
Subject: Wilmington Trust, N.A. v, Eric Muathe (Case #2014CV86P) - (PROPOSEDORDERJuly 27, 2017 Hearing)

Dear Judge Smith:

Attached is a proposed order for your review regarding your rulings at the hearing on July 27, 2017, regarding the case of: Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. Eric
Muathe (Case # 2014-CV-86-P).

Sincerely,
Matt Hubbard

Counsel for Plaintiff

<ID Revised Proposed Order Muathe.DOCX

32K
 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS

WILMINGTON TRUST N.A., )

)
Plaintiff, )
v. )
Case No. 2014-CV-000086-P
)
ERIC M. MUATHE, )
)
Defendant. )

ORDER

On this Thursday, July 27, 2017, this Court held a hearing and heard argument by

Defendant and counsel for Plaintiff on the motions that are identified below, and the Court enters

the following Order pertaining to the motions that it heard and this case:

1. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Counter Claim [doc. 85] is DENIED.

2. Defendant's Motion for Sanctions [doc. 105] is DENIED.

3. Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Discovery Responses [doc. 128] is DENIED.

4. Defendant's Motion to Determine Nature and Cause of Summons [doc. 106] is DENIED.

5. Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Discovery Responses [doc. 127] is DENIED.

The Court fmds that Plaintiff has standing to pursue its claims that are set forth in its Petition
against Defendant. Defendant's Request for Admissions No.'s 15-19, 21-31, 34 and 35,
Defendant's Request for Production of Documents No.'s 2-21, and Defendant's Interrogatories
No. 27 are not likely to lead to the discoverability of admissible evidence in this case. Plaintiffs
responses to Defendant's Request for Admissions, Defendant's Request for Production of
Documents, and Defendant's Interrogatories stand. Plaintiff's responses to Defendant's Second
Request for Admissions, Defendant's Second Request for Production of Documents, and
Defendant's Second Interrogatories also stand.

Plaintiff is required to respond to Defendant's requests for: (1) acceleration notices that may
have been sent to Defendant, (2) an affidavit of publication pursuant to K.S.A. 60-302, and (3)
the amount of attorney's fees (including attorney's fees incurred prior to this case) that Plaintiff
claims are owed by Defendant.

6. The Court will further review Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Second
Amended Counter Claim [doc. 101] and issue a ruling on that motion at a later date.

27789097v2
7. The discovery deadline for the parties to conduct deposition discovery in this case is
December 30, 2017. The parties will be permitted to ask for an extension of the deposition
discovery deadline. Written discovery in this case is now closed. The deadline for the parties to
file their dispositive motions in this case will be (30) days following the close of deposition
discovery.

8. The Court denies Defendant's request for a jury trial in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: July 27,2017

Judge Smith

2
27789097v2