Connor et al v. Caesars Entertainment Corporation

Filing 26

ORDER. The Court SANCTIONS Plaintiff Patrick, pursuant to LR IA 11-8(d), in the amount of 1/8 of the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Defendant in preparing for and attending the ENE, and 1/2 of the reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred in preparing 23 the response. Defendant shall submit documentation and authority for its reasonable attorneys' fees in accordance with this Order, no later than 4/5/17. Plaintiff Patrick shall respond to Defendant's filing no later than 4/10/17. Defendant may reply to Plaintiff's response no later than 4/12/17. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/29/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

PATRICIA L. CONNOR, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, )
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:16-cv-02255-APG-VCF
ORDER

14
15

On January 19, 2017, the Court set an early neutral evaluation (“ENE”) in the instant case

16

for March 7, 2017, and specifically ordered that all individual parties must attend the ENE. Docket

17

No. 13. Despite that order, however, Plaintiffs Parga and Patrick failed to appear at the ENE. The

18

Court therefore ordered Plaintiffs Parga and Patrick to show cause in writing why they should not

19

be sanctioned for failure to comply with the Court’s prior order. Docket No. 20.

20

On March 14, 2017, Plaintiffs Parga and Patrick responded to the Court’s order to show

21

cause. Docket No. 21. Both submitted declarations, under the penalty of perjury, stating that they

22

were called into work on March 7, 2017, and that they went to work in fear they would otherwise

23

lose their employment. Id. at 5, 7. On March 14, 2017, therefore, the Court ordered Defendant to

24

respond to Plaintiffs’ declarations. Docket No. 22. The Court also set a hearing on the order to

25

show cause for March 28, 2017. Id.

26

On March 20, 2017, Defendant responded to Plaintiffs’ response to the order to show cause.

27

Docket No. 23. Defendant submitted declarations and documentary evidence demonstrating that

28

Plaintiff Patrick was not scheduled to work on March 7, 2017, was not called in that day and, in fact,

1

did not work on March 7, 2017. Docket No. 23-2 at 2; Docket No. 23-3 at 2; Docket No. 23-4 at 2;

2

Docket No. 23-6 at 2. Similarly, Defendant presented evidence that Plaintiff Parga knew at least one

3

week in advance that she would be scheduled to work from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on the day of the

4

ENE. Docket No. 23-2 at 2-3; Docket No. 23-5 at 2; Docket No. 23-7 at 2. Defendant also

5

presented evidence that Plaintiff Parga’s employer was unaware of her court date and, had she asked

6

to miss her shift to attend the ENE, would have allowed her to do so with no adverse consequences.

7

Docket No. 23-2 at 2-3; Docket No. 23-7 at 2.

8

At the March 28, 2017 hearing, Plaintiff Patrick admitted that she did not work on March 7,

9

2017 and that she was not called in on that day. Plaintiff Patrick submitted that she thought she was

10

scheduled to work beginning at 12:30 p.m. – three hours after the start of the ENE – but was told that

11

she was not scheduled when she arrived at her workplace, at which point she went home. Plaintiff

12

Parga stated that she was aware in advance that she was scheduled to work from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00

13

p.m. on March 7, 2017, and that someone from her attorney’s office told her to go to work rather

14

than attend the ENE.

15

It is clear to the Court that Plaintiff Patrick’s response to the Court’s order to show cause was

16

less than candid. Additionally, the failure of Plaintiffs Patrick and Parga to attend the ENE wasted

17

the time and resources of this Court, the other plaintiffs in this case, Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s

18

counsel, and Defendant. While Plaintiff Parga clearly violated the Court’s order and the Court does

19

not condone any violations of its orders, the Court finds that she received bad information from

20

someone at her attorney’s office, and that she was actually at work on March 7, 2017. Accordingly,

21

the Court will not sanction Plaintiff Parga, but instead ADMONISHES her to follow all Court orders

22

in the future.

23

Plaintiff Patrick, however, knowingly violated the Court’s order to appear at the ENE, and

24

submitted a sworn declaration to the Court that contained false information. The Court, therefore,

25

SANCTIONS Plaintiff Patrick, pursuant to LR IA 11-8(d), in the amount of 1/8 of the reasonable

26

attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Defendant in preparing for and attending the ENE, and 1/2 of

27
28

2

1

the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in preparing the response at Docket No. 23.

2

Defendant shall submit documentation and authority for its reasonable attorneys’ fees in accordance

3

with this Order, no later than April 5, 2017. Plaintiff Patrick shall respond to Defendant’s filing no

4

later than April 10, 2017. Defendant may reply to Plaintiff’s response no later than April 12, 2017.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED: March 29, 2017.

7
8
9

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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

3