Bank of America, N.A. v. Sunset Ridge Limited Homeowners Association et al

Filing 74

ORDER re 73 Settlement Conference. The Court CAUTIONS HOA's counsel that the failure to comply with these obligations in the future may result in the imposition of sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/14/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
BANK OF AMERICA,

Case No.: 2:16-cv-00797-GMN-NJK

11
Plaintiff(s),

Order

12
v.
13
14
15
16

SUNSET RIDGE LIMITED
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendant(s).
The Court held a settlement conference in this case, Docket No. 73, the requirements for

17 which were spelled out in detail in the order at Docket No. 63. Among other requirements, the
18 Court ordered the attendance of “counsel of record who will be participating in the trial” and, “[i]f
19 the party is subject to coverage by an insurance carrier, then a representative of the insurance
20 carrier with authority to settle this matter up to the full amount of the claim or last demand.”
21 Docket No. 63 at 1-2 (emphasis in original). The HOA violated both of these provisions of the
22 Court’s order.
23

First, the Court ordered the attendance of “counsel of record who will be participating in

24 the trial.” The HOA’s attorneys of record are Joseph Garin, Kaleb Anderson, and Megan Hummel.
25 None of these attorneys appeared on behalf of the HOA. Instead, attorney Eric Tran appeared on
26 behalf of the HOA. Mr. Tran is not attorney of record in this case. Mr. Tran represented that he
27 was “covering” for another attorney, but never filed a request to enable him to do so. See Docket
28 No. 63 at 2 (ordering that any request to deviate from the attendance requirements must be
1

1 presented to the Court through a written motion). Parties must comply with clear orders unless
2 they request relief otherwise and that request is granted by the Court.
3

Second, it became apparent as the settlement conference progressed that the real party in

4 interest is not the HOA at all, but rather is its insurance carrier. The insurance carrier was not
5 present at the settlement conference, nor was its representative actively participating
6 telephonically. Instead, the Court had allowed the representative to appear telephonically on an
7 as-needed basis because the HOA and its counsel (Ms. Hummel) represented that “undersigned
8 counsel and a representative of the HOA will appear at the settlement conference with full
9 settlement authority.” Docket No. 65 at 2. This representation was plainly false. Mr. Tran and
10 the HOA representative were authorized by the insurance company to settle the case for no more
11 than $10,000. Given this case involves a dispute as to real property valued in the hundreds of
12 thousands of dollars, appearing at the settlement conference with authority of $10,000 is quite
13 obviously not “full settlement authority.”1 Had the Court been accurately informed of the
14 circumstances, it would have denied the HOA’s motion and required active participation by the
15 insurance carrier.
16

Although the Court would be within its discretion to impose sanctions, it declines to do so

17 in this instance. The Court reminds counsel that they must comply with the Court’s orders. See
18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). The Court also reminds counsel that representations to the Court must have
19 a reasonable factual basis. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. The Court lastly reminds counsel they must
20 acquire the basic competence and skills to practice law in this venue. See Dela Rosa v. Scottsdale
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

Mr. Tran appeared to argue that an insurance company may simply relay to its attorney
its valuation of a case and then not appear at a settlement conference. Such a premise is faulty:
The Court fails to see any reasonable interpretation of the term ‘up
to the full amount of the claim’ to mean a party’s own valuation of
the claim. By [that] logic, [an attorney] could have appeared at the
settlement conference with a representative with no settlement
authority because Defendant believes strongly that it will prevail on
its claims. That obviously defeats the point of having a settlement
conference.

Wilson v. KRD Trucking West, 2013 WL 836995, at *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2013) (emphasis in
28 original).
2

1 Mem. Health Sys., Inc., 136 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court CAUTIONS HOA’s
2 counsel that the failure to comply with these obligations in the future may result in the imposition
3 of sanctions.
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated: August 14, 2018

6

______________________________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3