Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC

Filing 72

ORDER that the 68 Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED. The Court cautions all parties and their counsel that they are expected to comply with the local rules. The Court also cautions all parties and their counsel that they owe this Court a duty of candor and must ensure that their factual representations are accurate and not misleading. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/12/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-01377-JCM-NJK
ORDER

16

Pending before the Court is an order for Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel to show cause why they

17

should not be sanctioned. Docket No. 68. That order to show cause was premised most significantly

18

on the representation of Defendant’s counsel that Plaintiff’s counsel has “routinely exceed[ed] the page

19

limits required by the local rules in this Court and in the Eighth Judicial District Court.” Docket No.

20

60 at 2; see also id. at 3 (asserting that Plaintiff’s counsel has “repeatedly” exceeded the page limitations

21

in both this and state court “by many pages”). Such representations are significant because, as the Court

22

noted in the order to show cause, “[v]iolations of the local rules are particularly egregious if done

23

knowingly and/or repeatedly.” Docket No. 68 at 1.

24

Prior to requiring a response from Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel to the order to show cause,

25

the Court required Defendant’s counsel to substantiate the representations of repeated local rules

26

violations by providing a supplemental factual showing. See Docket No. 68. That supplement has now

27

been filed, and identifies a single instance in which Defendant’s counsel contends Plaintiff’s counsel

28

exceeded the page limitations in the local rules of this Court by four pages. See Docket No. 69 at 3.

1

This does not establish the pattern of violating this Court’s local rules that had been suggested by

2

Defendant counsel’s previous representations.1

3

The order to show cause is hereby DISCHARGED. The Court CAUTIONS all parties and their

4

counsel that they are expected to comply with the local rules, including the local rules regarding seeking

5

leave to file oversized briefs and otherwise filing briefs that comply with the page limitations outlined

6

in the local rules. Failure to comply with the local rules may result in the imposition of sanctions. See,

7

e.g., Local Rule IA 11-8(c).

8

The Court also CAUTIONS all parties and their counsel that they owe this Court a duty of

9

candor, and must ensure that their factual representations are accurate and not misleading. See, e.g., Kor

10

Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 585 (D. Nev. 2013). Failure to comply with that duty may

11

result in the imposition of sanctions. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

12

Lastly, the inflated rhetoric in the motion to strike appears to evidence a breakdown of the

13

relationship of counsel. “The court expects a high degree of professionalism and civility from

14

attorneys.” Local Rule 1-1(c). Counsel are urged to create and maintain a more cooperative

15

relationship.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

DATED: May 12, 2016

18
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The supplement also identifies five cases in which Defendant asserts Plaintiff’s counsel violated
the page limitation requirements applicable in state court. Docket No. 69 at 3-4. Two of the cases cited
include what appear to be instances of a brief being a single page beyond the state court page limitation, and
another that was three pages too long.
2