Lauburg v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, No. 3:2008cv01733 - Document 9 (N.D. Tex. 2008)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel filed by Mark Lauburg (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan on 10/31/2008) (twd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
TNTHE LINITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT NORTHERNDISTRICTOF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MARK LAUBURG Plaintiff, VS. NO. 3-08-CV-1733-P WAL-MART STORES, INC. Defendant. MEMORANDUM ORDER Plaintiff Mark Lauburg has filed a motion for appointmentof counsel in this disability discrimination,sex discrimination,and retaliationcasebroughtunder Title VII of the Civil Rights 42 Act of 1964,as amended, U.S.C. $ 2000e,et seq.,and the AmericansWith DisabilitiesAct of right to the appointment counselin an of 7990,42U.S.C. $ 12101 et seq. Thereis no automatic , Roebuck Co.,556 F.2d 1305,1309(5th Cir. & disuimination suit. Castonv. Sears, employment 1977). Rather,the decisionis left to the sounddiscretionof the trial court. The court must consider: (1) the merits of the claim; (2) efforts taken to obtain a lawyer; and (3) the financial ability of plaintiff to retaincounsel.SeeGonzalez Carlin,907 F.2d 573,580(5th Cir. 1990);Caston,556 v. F.2d at 580. F.2d at 1309. No sinslefactoris conclusive.Gonzalez.907 Prior to nting's.rit, plaintiff filed a chargeof air"ri-ination with the EEOC. The agency investigated the charge and was "unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes is violations of the statutes."(Mag. J. Quest.#3, Attch.). Sucha determination "highly probative" judicial proceeding.SeeGonzalez,907 .2d F in decidingwhetherto appointcounselin a subsequent plaintifflacksthefinancial to resources hire a lawyer, at at 580;Caston,556F.2d 1309.Although of that factoralonedoesnot warrantthe appointment counsel. without plaintiffsmotionfor appointment counsel of Forthese reasons, [Doc.#3] is denied motions afterdispositive dismissal his survives prejudice. Plaintiffmayreurge motionif this case aredecided. SO ORDERED. DATED: October 2008. 31. JUDGE MAGISTRATE STATES
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
