Town & Country Bank v. Katz et al

Filing 23

ORDER Discharging 20 Order to Show Cause. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/03/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
TOWN & COUNTRY BANK,
10
Plaintiff(s),
11
vs.
12
LEON R. KATZ, et al.,
13
Defendant(s).
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-0312-JCM-NJK
ORDER

15
For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby DISCHARGES the November 22, 2013,
16
Order to Show Cause, Docket No. 20.
17
I.

Background

18
On November 8, 2013, the Court issued an order requiring Defendant Leon Katz to attend the
19
hearing set for November 22, 2013, on Defendants’ counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney.
20
Docket No. 18. The Order clearly stated:
21
Defendant Leon Katz and his withdrawing counsel are required to attend the hearing. There
will be no exceptions to that requirement.

22
23

Id.

24

On November 22, 2013, the Court called this matter for the hearing on the motion to

25

withdraw as scheduled. Defendant failed to appear as ordered. His counsel, Mr. Nold, told the Court

26

that Defendant Katz was in the Philippines and that on November 19, 2013, he informed Mr. Nold

27

via telephone that he would not be attending the November 22, 2013, hearing. Defendant and his

28

counsel did not request, however, nor did the Court allow, an exception to the attendance

1

requirement. Therefore, by failing to appear at November 22, 2013, hearing, Defendant was in direct

2

violation of this Court’s Order.

3

Further, during the hearing, Mr. Nold informed the Court that he intended to continue to

4

represent Defendant Leon in this matter for the time being. Therefore, Mr. Nold was no longer

5

seeking to withdraw at that stage of the proceedings. Mr. Nold never filed a motion to withdraw his

6

motion nor did he inform the Court prior to the hearing that his client would not appear at the Court-

7

ordered hearing on November 22, 2013, a hearing set for the sole purpose of resolving Mr. Nold’s

8

motion to withdraw as counsel.

9

After the hearing on November 22, 2013, the Court ordered Defendant Leon Katz and his

10

attorney, Joseph T. Nold, to show cause in writing, no later than December 2, 2013, why the Court

11

should not issue sanctions against them for failure to comply with a Court order, up to and including

12

a Court sanction of $1,000 pursuant to Local Rule IA 4-1, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), and/or the Court’s

13

inherent authority. Per the Court’s order, Defendant Katz and his counsel, Mr. Nold, responded in

14

writing on December 2, 2013.

15

II.

Discussion

16

In his response to the order to show cause, Mr. Nold states that he did not withdraw his

17

motion to withdraw because he wanted to finish “all remaining issues in this case” in order to be

18

helpful to Defendants, Opposing Counsel, and the Court. Docket No. 22, at 3. Therefore, Mr. Nold

19

argues, his motion was not moot and was not withdrawn. Id. Additionally, Mr. Nold revisits the

20

proposal he made at the November 22, 2013, hearing, in which he asked the Court to grant his

21

motion to withdraw, but delay filing that order until all issues in this case are resolved. Id. Mr. Nold

22

ignores, however, that if he represents Defendant Katz until the conclusion of this case, there will be

23

no case left for him to withdraw from and, therefore, his motion was in fact moot. Further, even if

24

Mr. Nold’s motion was not moot, it is not the practice of this Court to delay filing its orders at the

25

convenience of counsel.1

26
27
28

1

The Court also does not delay the consideration of motions pending on its docket at the
convenience of counsel.
2

1

Concerning why his client did not attend the hearing, Mr. Nold represented to the Court that

2

his client, Defendant Katz, could not afford a plane ticket from the Philippines and could not take

3

time off work. Docket No. 22, at 3. Additionally, Defendant “was dealing with issues of the

4

Typhoon Haiyan.” Id. Mr. Nold acknowledges that he should have informed the Court prior to the

5

hearing that his client would not be present at the hearing. Id. However, Mr. Nold states that he

6

“incorrectly assumed that this Honorable Court would be pleased that all issues in this case were

7

being resolved.” Id.

8

The Court’s opinion on the resolution of this case, however, is not relevant to the matter at

9

hand. Mr. Nold knew three days before the hearing that his client would not attend the hearing and

10

that he no longer wished to immediately withdraw from the case. Nevertheless, Mr. Nold made no

11

effort to inform the Court that his motion was moot or that his client would not attend the hearing.2

12

The Court’s time and resources were wasted and Rule 16 sanctions are appropriate.3

13

Nevertheless, in light of the fact that this case is being resolved and because Mr. Nold is no

14

longer being paid by his client, the Court will use its discretion to not impose monetary sanctions at

15

this time. The Court admonishes Mr. Nold and instructs him to be more prudent in the future.

16

...

17

...

18
19

2

20

hearing.

21

3

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Mr. Nold also never requested that the Court allow his client to appear telephonically at the

Federal Rule 16(f) requires counsel to comply with pretrial orders and provides that the Court
may order any “just” sanctions, including those outlined in Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), for noncompliance. Wilson v. KRD Trucking W., 2013 WL 836995 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2013). Violations of
Federal Rule 16 are neither technical nor trivial. Id.; citing Martin Family Trust v. Heco/Nostalgia
Enterps. Co., 186 F.R.D. 601, 603 (E.D.Cal.1999). It is clear that “the rule is broadly remedial and its
purpose is to encourage forceful judicial management.” Id.; quoting Sherman v. United States, 801 F.2d
1133, 1135 (9th Cir.1986). The rule also makes clear that “concerns about burdens on the court are to
receive no less attention than concerns about burdens on opposing parties.” Id., quoting Matter of
Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1441 (10th Cir.1984)(en banc). Whether the party and/or its counsel disobeyed
the court order intentionally is impertinent; sanctions may be imposed when the parties and their counsel
disobey a court order. See Lucas Auto. Eng'g, Inc. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 275 F.3d 762, 769 (9th
Cir.2001).
3

1
2
3

III.

Conclusion
Based on the forgoing and good cause appearing therefore, the Court hereby DISCHARGES

the November 22, 2013, Order to Show Cause, Docket No. 20.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: December 3, 2013

6
7
8

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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