Stetter v. Blackpool, LLC et al

Filing 205

ORDER OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT BICKLEY - As a sanction for his failure to assist in preparing this case for trial, default is entered against Defendant Bickley. Plaintiff may, within 20 days of the date of this order, provide the Court with a proposed form of judgment and any evidence in support of the proposed judgment. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 08/01/11. (ESL)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Dr. Guenter Stetter, a citizen of the foreign
state of Germany,

10

Plaintiff,

11

ORDER OF DEFAULT AGAINST
DEFENDANT BICKLEY

vs.

12

No. CV09-1071-PHX-DGC

John R. Bickley, IV, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

For reasons stated below, the Court will enter default against Defendant John R.

17

Bickley, IV for his repeated failures to cooperate in the prosecution of this litigation. The

18

Court will afford Plaintiff an opportunity to submit a proposed form of judgment and

19

evidence in support of the judgment.

20

On May 16, 2011, the Court entered an order setting a final pretrial conference on

21

July 29, 2011. Doc. 199. This was the second time the Court had scheduled such a

22

conference in this case. Doc. 146. The previous final pretrial conference was postponed

23

in light of Defendant Bickley’s bankruptcy and Defendant Gould’s health issues. See

24

Docs. 153, 154.

25

The May 16 order required the parties jointly to prepare and file a proposed final

26

pretrial order, as well as other items related to the completion of trial in this case. The

27

order stated that “[f]ull and complete compliance with this Order shall be required by the

28

1

court.”

Doc. 199, ¶ 13.

Defendant Bickley refused to follow the order.

Despite

2

communications from Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Bickley refused to cooperate in the

3

preparation of a proposed final pretrial order. See Doc. 200.

4

On July 21, 2011, the Court entered an order allowing Defendant Burton Gould to

5

participate in the final pretrial conference by telephone due to his continuing medical

6

issues. Doc. 202. The order specifically stated, however, that “all remaining Defendants

7

in this matter shall appear in person at the hearing.” Id. This was not the first time

8

Defendant Bickley had been cautioned that strict compliance with the orders related to

9

the final pretrial conference would be required. On May 2, 2011, the Court entered an

10

order resolving various issues and stating that a final pretrial conference would be

11

scheduled by separate order and that “[t]he parties shall be required to comply strictly

12

with every requirement of the order.” Doc. 198 at 2 (emphasis in original).

13

Despite these repeated warnings that full compliance with the Court’s final pretrial

14

conference order would be required, Defendant Bickley declined to participate or

15

cooperate in any effort to prepare for the final pretrial conference. Defendant Bickley

16

called the Court’s chambers on the afternoon of July 29, 2011, to state that he would not

17

appear at the final pretrial conference that day. The Court’s Judicial Assistant warned

18

him that his deliberate failure to appear could result in default being entered against him.

19

Defendant Bickley nonetheless failed to appear at the final pretrial conference. He did,

20

however, call the Court’s chambers later that evening to confirm that the final pretrial

21

conference had in fact occurred.

22

During the final pretrial conference, Plaintiff’s counsel explained that he had

23

several conversations with Defendant Bickley concerning his intention not to appear or

24

participate in the final pretrial conference. Plaintiff’s counsel also warned Defendant

25

Bickley that such conduct could result in a default against him, but these warnings, like

26

the Court’s, went unheeded.

27

Recently, orders mailed by the Court to Defendant Bickley have been returned

28

unopened. See Doc. 203. As a result, the Court’s Judicial Assistant asked Defendant
‐ 2 ‐ 

1

Bickley during the July 29, 2011 phone call to provide an updated mailing address.

2

Defendant Bickley refused to do so.

3

These are not the first problems that have arisen with respect to Defendant

4

Bickley’s participation in this litigation.

Early in the case, the Court had to warn

5

Defendant Bickley repeatedly about possible contempt sanctions before he would

6

produce information specifically called for in the Court’s orders.

7

Bickley declared bankruptcy after the first final pretrial conference was scheduled. His

8

bankruptcy action apparently was dismissed on motion of the bankruptcy trustee after

9

Bickley failed to appear and be examined at the meeting of creditors. Doc. 173.

Later, Defendant

10

To summarize, Defendant Bickley was uncooperative with the Court from the

11

start, requiring the Court to make contempt threats before he would produce required

12

documents. Defendant Bickley did not participate actively in the discovery process in

13

this case, and declared bankruptcy after the Court scheduled the first final pretrial

14

conference. The bankruptcy action was dismissed when Defendant Bickley failed to

15

comply with court orders. When this Court set the second final pretrial conference, it

16

specifically required Bickley to cooperate in preparation of a proposed final pretrial order

17

and to submit other documents such as proposed jury instructions and voir dire. The

18

Court warned Bickley that strict compliance would be required.

19

cooperate despite attempts by Plaintiff’s counsel to obtain his cooperation. Bickley also

20

failed to appear at the final pretrial conference despite being well aware of it, as

21

evidenced by his calls to the Court’s chambers that day. Bickley even refused to provide

22

the Court’s judicial assistant with an updated mailing address.

Bickley failed to

23

Sanctions of dismissal and default for willful and inexcusable failure to prosecute

24

litigation “are proper exercises of discretion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

25

41(b), 16(f), and the inherent power of the court.” Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381,

26

1385 (9th Cir. 1996). The Ninth Circuit has identified several factors to be considered

27

before terminating sanctions may be entered: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious

28

resolution of the litigation, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of
‐ 3 ‐ 

1

prejudice to the opposing party, (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

2

their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int.’l

3

Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th Cir. 2002).

4

In this case, the first two factors favor entry of default against Defendant Bickley.

5

His refusal to participate in preparing for trial has made expeditious resolution of this

6

case impossible, and the Court’s need to manage its docket dictates that the case proceed

7

notwithstanding his obstructionist tactics. The third factor also favors default. Bickley’s

8

refusal to assist in preparing for trial presents a risk of prejudice to Plaintiff, who has a

9

clear interest in concluding this case on the merits. The fourth factor – the public policy

10

favoring disposition of cases on the merits – weighs against the entry of default, but

11

cannot be satisfied when Defendant Bickley refuses to prepare this case for trial. The

12

Court has considered the fifth factor – less drastic sanctions – but none is apparent.

13

Defendant Bickley has refused to comply with the Court’s orders, refused to respond to

14

the Court’s staff’s urging that he participate in hearings, refused to appear at a final

15

pretrial conference despite the Court and Plaintiff’s counsel’s warning that default could

16

result, and refused to provide a mailing address where the Court can contact him. The

17

Court concludes that no alternative measures would produce the compliance needed to

18

conclude this case on the merits and, therefore, that entry of default against Defendant

19

Bickley is the least drastic sanction that will accomplish the goals of Rules 1, 16, and 37

20

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

21

IT IS ORDERED:

22

1.

23

As a sanction for his failure to assist in preparing this case for trial, default

is entered against Defendant Bickley.

24
25
26
27
28
‐ 4 ‐ 

1
2
3

2.

Plaintiff may, within 20 days of the date of this order, provide the Court

with a proposed form of judgment and any evidence in support of the proposed judgment.
Dated this 1st day of August, 2011.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
‐ 5 ‐