Sandowski v. Kelly et al

Filing 97

ORDER Regarding Status of Plaintiff's Counsel. Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 9/3/2019. (cib)

Case 1:17-cv-00469-SOM-WRP Document 97 Filed 09/03/19 Page 1 of 4

PageID #: 804

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
RICHARD J. SANDOWSKI,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, ACTING )
SECRETARY OF HOMELAND
)
SECURITY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 17-00469 SOM-WRP
ORDER REGARDING STATUS OF
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL

ORDER REGARDING STATUS OF PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL
This court directs Plaintiff's counsel to clarify her status as a member of the
bar of the State of Hawaii no later than September 10, 2019.
This court's understanding is that Plaintiff's counsel has been a member of
the bar of the State of Nevada since 1999, and a member of the bar of the State of
Hawaii since 2014. On July 5, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel was suspended by the
Nevada Supreme Court for six months and one day for violating her obligation to
safekeep clients' property. Under Rule 2.15 of the Rules of the Hawaii Supreme
Court, Plaintiff's counsel was required to notify Hawaii's Office of Disciplinary
Counsel "promptly" of this Nevada suspension. ODC, in turn, would notify the
Hawaii Supreme Court, which, in accordance with Rule 2.15, could then direct the
attorney to inform the Hawaii Supreme Court within 30 days "of any claim by the

Case 1:17-cv-00469-SOM-WRP Document 97 Filed 09/03/19 Page 2 of 4

PageID #: 805

attorney that an equivalent or substantially equivalent order in this state would be
unwarranted and the reasons therefor." If the Hawaii Supreme Court ordered a
reciprocal suspension of Plaintiff's counsel, this court would be notified, so that
this court could determine whether disciplinary action in this court should issue.
No later than September 10, 2013, Plaintiff's counsel must file a document
stating whether she has provided ODC with the notice required by Rule 2.15 of the
Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai`i, and the date on which such
notice was provided. In the same filing, Plaintiff’s counsel must state whether she
has provided her client, Richard J. Sandowski, with the notice required by Rule
2.16 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai`i. This court has
determined that the present case is the only pending case involving Plaintiff's
counsel in this court.
Until Plaintiff's counsel’s status has been clarified, this court will take no
action on the pending defense motion, which was scheduled to be argued on
September 3, 2019, at 10:30 a.m. The court notes that, on August 31, 2019,
Plaintiff's counsel filed a stipulation purporting to continue the September 3
hearing for no more than three weeks. Although the parties may have discussed
that schedule, this court had earlier had court staff contact the attorneys for both
sides to say that the court would continue the hearing for more than three weeks
2

Case 1:17-cv-00469-SOM-WRP Document 97 Filed 09/03/19 Page 3 of 4

PageID #: 806

(until October 7, 2019, at 9 a.m.), but that Plaintiff's counsel's opposition
memorandum, which, under local court rules, should have been filed by August
13, 2019, would be due by September 3, 2019, and that an optional defense reply
memorandum could be filed no later than September 10, 2013. Not only was the
October 7 date absent from the stipulation, the briefing deadlines provided by the
court were not included. There was a line for a judge's signature on the
stipulation, but it was blank. Indeed, this court did not approve the stipulation at
all. This court did not even see the document until shortly before the hearing on
September 3, which was the first working day after Labor Day. The document had
been filed electronically the Saturday immediately before Labor Day.
Court staff contacted Plaintiff's counsel by phone on September 3 to say
that, because no stipulated continuance was in effect, the hearing would proceed
on September 3. Plaintiff's counsel indicated that she was out of the country and
asked to appear by phone, which was allowed. However, when court staff then
tried to contact Plaintiff's counsel by phone, email, and text message for the
10:30 a.m. hearing, there was no response. This means that, quite apart from
questions about her status, Plaintiff's counsel skipped the hearing, compounding
her failure to meet her briefing deadline.

3

Case 1:17-cv-00469-SOM-WRP Document 97 Filed 09/03/19 Page 4 of 4

PageID #: 807

Later on September 3, Plaintiff’s counsel called the court, presumably to
participate in the hearing. By then, the hearing had concluded.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the attorneys of
record, as well as to Richard J. Sandowski, 175 Iwalani Street, Hilo, HI 96720.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; September 3, 2019.
/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
United States District Judge

Richard J. Sandowski v. Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Secretary of Homeland
Security, et al.; Civil No. 17-00469 SOM-WRP; ORDER REGARDING STATUS
OF PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL
4