Nowak v. Isles Homeowners' Association

Filing 28

ORDER GRANTING defendant's motion for ruling on sanctions (doc. 27 ), GRANTING defendant's motion for sanctions (doc. 25 ), DISMISSING this case with prejudice for plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) and 37(b)(2)(A)(v), and AWARDING defendant its reasonable fees and costs incurred in preparing for the settlement conference at which plaintiff failed to appear. Defendant shall submit evidence of its reasonable fees and costs on or be fore February 28, 2013. Out of an abundance of caution, we direct the clerk to send a copy of this order to both plaintiff's address of record, as well as the address listed on plaintiff's email (doc.#26). Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 2/13/2013.(KMG)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Kirk Nowak, Plaintiff, 10 11 vs. 12 Isles Homeowners’ Association, 13 Defendant. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 12-08023-PCT-FJM ORDER 15 16 17 18 The court has before it defendant’s motion for sanctions (doc. 25) and defendant’s motion for ruling on motion for sanctions (doc. 27). 19 Defendant seeks sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) for plaintiff’s failure to 20 comply with the Magistrate Judge’s settlement conference orders dated May 21, 2012 and 21 August 2, 2012. Defendant contends that plaintiff also failed to comply with the Magistrate 22 Judge’s order dated September 18, 2012, requiring plaintiff to show cause why he should not 23 be sanctioned for failing to comply with the May 21 and August 2 orders. Neither plaintiff’s 24 former lawyer (now withdrawn) nor the Magistrate Judge’s staff had been able to contact 25 plaintiff. Then, on January 18, 2013, the Magistrate Judge received a prohibited ex parte 26 email communication from plaintiff in chamber’s email box, purporting to explain why 27 plaintiff had failed to comply with the court’s orders. The Magistrate Judge sealed the email 28 communication, had copies sent to the counsel of record, and informed plaintiff of the 1 prohibition of ex parte communications with a judge. 2 This action was filed over a year ago. Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew as of August 1, 3 2012, and although plaintiff was notified of his responsibility to prosecute this case, he has 4 made no effort to do so. He ignored two orders to appear at settlement conferences, then 5 ignored an order to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his failure to comply. 6 He has been notified that his failure to comply could result in sanctions. It was only after 7 defendant filed its motion for sanctions that plaintiff was finally prompted to respond, 8 however he only did so by way of a prohibited ex parte communication. Plaintiff has 9 inadequately explained his neglect in prosecuting this case. 10 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendant’s motion for ruling on 11 sanctions (doc. 27), GRANTING defendant’s motion for sanctions (doc. 25), DISMISSING 12 this case with prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders, pursuant to Fed. 13 R. Civ. P. 16(f) and 37(b)(2)(A)(v), and AWARDING defendant its reasonable fees and 14 costs incurred in preparing for the settlement conference at which plaintiff failed to appear. 15 Defendant shall submit evidence of its reasonable fees and costs on or before February 28, 16 2013. 17 We note that in his email communication, plaintiff provided an address different from 18 that stated on the docket. See email attachment to Judge Anderson’s order (doc. 26). 19 Although this does not comply with the change of address notice required by LRCiv 83.3(d), 20 out of an abundance of caution, we direct the clerk to send a copy of this order to both 21 plaintiff’s address of record, as well as the address listed on plaintiff’s email. 22 DATED this 13th day of February, 2013. 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?