Patricia Stewart, D.O. v. American Association of Physician Specialists, Inc. et al

Filing 70

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION 68 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application. (ECF No. 68.) The hearing on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 47-58) is cpntinued to April 28, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff's Opposition is due April 7, 2014. (bp)

O

1
2
3
4
5

United States District Court
Central District of California

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Case No. 5:13-cv-1670-ODW (DTBx)

PATRICIA STEWART, D.O.,
v.

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE
APPLICATION [68]

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
PHYSICIAN SPECIALISTS, INC.,
WILLIAM CARBONE, ANTHONY
DURANTE; DOUGLAS MARCINIACK;
ROBERT CERRATO, ANTHONY
RUSSO; STEPHEN MONTES; JOSEPH
GALLAGHER; BRIAN FEAVER; KEN
WALLACE; WILLIAM ANDERSEN;
THOMAS BALSHI; SUSAN
SLOMINSKY; SVETLANA
RUBAKOVIC, LORI HONEYCUTT;
ROBERT ILOWITE; BART MAGGIO
and DOES 1-100,
Defendants.

23
24
25

“Civility costs nothing, and buys everything.”

26

—Mary Wortley Montagu

27

On March 16, 2014, Plaintiff’s Counsel William A. Okerblom filed an Ex Parte

28

Application with the Court.

(ECF No. 68.)

Okerblom requests that the Court

1

continue the March 24, 2014 hearing on Defendants’ twelve motions to dismiss and

2

grant him an extension of time to file his oppositions to the motions. (Id.)

3

On March 11, 2014, William Okerblom replaced Plaintiff Patricia Stewart’s

4

original counsel, Hal Farley. (ECF No. 67.) Farley—a sole practitioner—filed the

5

substitution request after his only paralegal, Michael Okerblom, died in a high-impact

6

collision on February 26, 2014.

7

oppositions to the Defendants’ motions to dismiss to Michael Okerblom. (Farley

8

Decl. ¶ 2.) The laptop computers containing the electronic drafts of the oppositions

9

were in Michael Okerblom’s vehicle at the time of the crash. (Id. ¶ 2–3.) The vehicle

10

was destroyed and impounded as part of the accident investigation. (Id. ¶ 3.) The

11

contents of the vehicle—including the laptop and back up drive—were not released to

12

the family until March 5, 2014. (Id.)

Farley had delegated the initial drafting of the

The day the hard drives were released a computer technician was retained to

13
14

attempt to retrieve the documents.

(Id. ¶ 4; Raguz Decl. ¶ 2.)

The technician

15

determined that the hard drives were too badly damaged to retrieve their contents.

16

(Raguz Decl. ¶ 4.) Consequently, Farley was unable to timely file the oppositions to

17

Defendants’ motions, which were due March 3, 2014. (Farley Decl. ¶ 5.)

18

William Okerblom—Michael Okerblom’s father—substituted in on an

19

emergency basis to respond to the motions to dismiss while Stewart searches for an

20

attorney who will represent her on a contingency basis. (Okerblom Decl. ¶ 2.) On

21

February 27, 2014, Farley contacted Defendants’ lead counsel Eric Schneider to

22

inform him about Michael Okerblom’s death. (Schneider Decl. ¶ 2.) On March 11,

23

2104, William Okerblom contacted Schneider to request a one-month extension of

24

time to respond to the twelve pending motions to dismiss. (Okerblom Decl. ¶ 5;

25

Schneider Decl. ¶ 5.) Inexplicably, Schneider refused to agree to anything more than

26

a two week extension.1 (Id.)

27
28

1

Schneider asserts that he actually offered a three week extension, including the one week and one
day that had already passed by the time of the conference. (Schneider Decl. ¶ 5.)

2

1

On March 17, 2014, Schneider filed a declaration in support of Defendants’

2

opposition to the ex parte application. (ECF No. 69.) Despite being unable to come to

3

an agreement with William Okerblom previously, Schneider now informs the Court

4

Defendants are amenable to the four-week continuance and “will not suffer prejudice

5

as a consequence of the continuance of the pending motions . . . .” (Schneider Decl.

6

¶ 7.)

7

Litigation is not a zero-sum game in which one’s gain can only come at

8

another’s loss.

9

opposing counsel is an inefficiency that is particularly wearisome in light of today’s

10

overcrowded dockets. A request by new counsel for a four-week extension of time to

11

respond to twelve pending motions to dismiss is not unreasonable—especially when

12

the documents were destroyed in an accident that took the life of the new counsel’s

13

son. Indeed, Schneider now acknowledges that no prejudice at all will inure to the

14

Defendants from such a continuance.

15

Contentiously opposing anything and everything proposed by

The deterioration of attorneys’ civility in their treatment of adversaries is of

16

particular concern to this Court. Numerous jurisdictions have endeavored to improve

17

by developing standards for professional conduct. Indeed, the preamble to the Central

18

District of California’s Civility and Professionalism Guidelines cautions,

19

Uncivil behavior does not constitute effective advocacy; rather, it serves

20

to increase litigation costs and fails to advance the client's lawful

21

interests. Perhaps just as importantly, this type of behavior causes the

22

public to lose faith in the legal profession and its ability to benefit

23

society. For these reasons, we find that civility and professionalism

24

among advocates, between lawyer and client, and between bench and bar

25

are essential to the administration of justice.

26

(available

at

http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/attorneys/admissions/civility-and-

27

professionalism-guidelines). Scant judicial resources and time should not be wasted

28

resolving such needless, petty disputes.

3

1

The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application. (ECF No. 68.)

2

The hearing on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 47–58) is continued to

3

April 28, 2014 at 1:30pm. Plaintiff’s Opposition is due April 7, 2014.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

March 19, 2014

7
8
9

____________________________________
HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4