Anoruo v. Valley Health System, LLC

Filing 39

ORDER that sanctions in the amount of $350, representing one hour of reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the defendant for preparing for and attending the ENE at which plaintiff did not appear, are imposed against the plaintiff in favor of defendant. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 5/24/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

JOSEPH ANORUO,

Case No. 2:18-cv-00105-MMD-NJK

8
9
10

13

ORDER

VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC,
Defendant.

11
12

Plaintiff,

v.

Before the court is Pro Se Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause (ECF No. 36) which is actually
a response to this court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 34) entered April 9, 2018.

14

The Complaint in this case filed in state court and removed January 19, 2018. It is an

15

employment and civil rights action arising out of plaintiff’s employment and eventual termination.

16

Plaintiff has asserted claims for national origin discrimination; FMLA interference and retaliation;

17

breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; wrongful

18

termination; and violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

19

Pursuant to LR 16-6, the case was automatically assigned to the court’s Early Neutral

20

Evaluation (“ENE”) program on January 19, 2018, the date the matter was removed. The court’s

21

ENE program automatically refers employment cases for ENE’s to a different magistrate judge

22

than the one assigned to the case. This is done to allow the parties and the assigned ENE judge to

23

have frank discussions about the strength and weaknesses of the parties’ claims and defenses in a

24

setting in which the parties are not worried about how the assigned judges react to the parties’

25

positions.

26

On January 29, 2018, the court entered an Order (ECF No. 8) scheduling an ENE session

27

for March 28, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. On February 9, 2018, the defendant filed a Motion to Continue

28

the ENE (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff did not file a timely response to the motion and the court entered
1

1

an Order (ECF No. 13) granting the request after the time for filing a response had expired. The

2

Order (ECF No. 13) vacated the March 28, 2018 ENE and continued it to April 5, 2018 at 1:30

3

p.m. Two days after the order was entered, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Pro Se Plaintiff’s

4

Opposition to Notice of Non-Opposition, a Response to Defendant’s Motion to Reschedule Early

5

Neutral Evaluation, Alternatively, a Motion to Strike Notice of Non-Opposition” (ECF No. 17).

6

This filing addressed multiple motions on file and the filing indicated that plaintiff received notice

7

of defendant’s motion to reschedule the ENE on February 16, 2018 “which he has already

8

responded to.” It would appear that plaintiff believed he responded to the motion to reschedule

9

the ENE by filing Docket No. 11 on February 13, 2018. That filing was entitled “Pro Se Plaintiff’s

10

Motion to Amend, Stay and Remand Civil Action to the 8th Judicial District Court, Alternatively,

11

to Allow Enlargement of Time to File a Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.” Docket No

12

11 did not mention the scheduled early neutral evaluation. Rather, it asked that the court allow

13

him “to amend complaint, stay and or enlarge time and remand” the case to state court.

14

Plaintiff also filed an Ex Parte Motion to Vacate & Stay Discovery and in the Alternative

15

to Vacate Reschedule Early Neutral Evaluation Order & Session (ECF No. 28) on March 16, 2018.

16

Judge Koppe, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case, denied plaintiff’s ex parte motion to stay

17

discovery or vacate the early neutral evaluation in an Order (ECF No. 31) entered March 19, 2018.

18

Plaintiff did not appear for the April 5, 2018 ENE. The court therefore entered an order to

19

show cause why sanctions in the form of assessing plaintiff $350 for one hour of attorney’s fees

20

incurred by defendant for appearing at the ENE should not be imposed. Plaintiff’s response to the

21

order to show cause represents that his failure to attend was not deliberate, but due to confusion in

22

the order of March 19, 2018 “and compounded with plaintiff’s other engagements.” In his

23

response to the order to show cause, the plaintiff also states that he “believed that the early Neutral

24

Evaluation was stayed pending the determination of motion to Amend, remand, stay proceeding

25

including ENE and protective order,” based on Judge Koppe’s March 19, 2018 order. The court

26

cannot discern how plaintiff reached this conclusion.

27

The response to the order to show cause focuses on a sentence in the March 19, 2018 order

28

that the states “Plaintiff’s motion requests relief that plaintiff has already requested in a motion
2

1

currently pending before the court.” The order referred to Docket No. 26. Docket No 26 is

2

plaintiff’s motion for protective order which was filed ex parte and sought protection from

3

discovery of information believed was private and confidential. The motion also asked that the

4

court vacate the order rescheduling the ENE. However, order is quite clear. Judge Koppe found

5

the ex parte motion to stay discovery and vacate the ENE was defective for numerous reasons

6

which she outlined in the order. The order also explicitly denied the motion: “Plaintiff’s motion

7

is hereby DENIED.” A motion to stay does not stay proceedings in a case unless and until the

8

motion to stay is granted. Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to stay and postpone the ENE was denied on

9

March 19, 2018, well in advance of the rescheduled April 5, 2018 ENE.

10

Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause also states that he believes discovery should

11

not be allowed until a threshold question of qualified immunity is resolved by the court. However,

12

qualified immunity is a defense that may be raised by state actors. The defendants in this case are

13

private entities, and nothing in the court’s review of the docket indicates that a qualified immunity

14

defense has been asserted.

15

No. 19) on February 27, 2018 pursuant to the provisions of LR 26-1. Judge Koppe’s order

16

provided “to the extent Plaintiff wishes to stay discovery pending resolution of his motion to

17

remand at Docket No. 11, he must file a proper request seeking that relief.” As indicated on March

18

16, 2018, plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to vacate the ENE and stay discovery. However, that

19

motion was explicitly denied in an Order (ECF No. 31) entered March 19, 2018.

Judge Koppe entered a Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF

20

Plaintiff response to the order to show cause also states that he did not consent to any

21

magistrate deciding any matter in this case and believes “that my rights are not protected so far in

22

this case with its discovery abuses.” This case was randomly assigned to a district judge and a

23

magistrate judge pursuant to the practices and procedures of the court. United States Magistrate

24

Judges exercise duties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a) & (b), and the Local Rules of Practice. Those

25

duties include conducting early neutral evaluations. As indicated pursuant to LR 16-6, early

26

neutral evaluations are automatically referred to a different magistrate judge than the one assigned

27

to the case. The magistrate judge assigned to this case, Judge Koppe, is authorized to perform

28

duties in civil cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(a), LR IB 1-1 and LR IB 1-7. These duties include
3

1

exercising general jurisdiction of civil and criminal calendars, conducting pretrial conferences,

2

settlement conferences, ENEs, hearings, and related proceedings in civil and criminal cases.

3

Magistrate judges typically address scheduling, case management and discovery issues, and decide

4

non-dispositive motions in civil cases. These types of matters are automatically referred to the

5

assigned magistrate judge for decision by the court’s Case Management/Electronic Filing System.

6

Mr. Anoruo’s case will be finally resolved by the district judge, who is an Article III judge.

7

However, the assigned magistrate judge will decide matters referred to her pursuant to statutory

8

authorization and the Local Rules of Practice. Mr. Anoruo’s consent is not required as a matter of

9

law.

10

Plaintiff also objects to defendant’s request for $350/hr. for one hour of attorney’s fees

11

incurred by the defendant for appearing at an ENE at which plaintiff did not appear. Plaintiff states

12

that he believes the $350 rate “is overly expenses” and “will demand cost analysis and would be

13

based on the fees authorized by this court based on fairness, equity and justice should this court

14

award such fees.” He goes on to state that he “will responded appropriately later due to time

15

constraint.” His time to respond to the order to show cause expired April 23, 2018. Nevertheless,

16

the court considered his untimely response. No further response has been filed to date and no

17

further response will be allowed.

18

Having reviewed and considered the plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause, the

19

court finds that plaintiff’s interpretation of Judge Koppe’s March 19, 2018 order denying his

20

motion to stay the ENE is an unreasonable one. The motion was explicitly denied. The court will

21

therefore award $350 as a sanction for one hour of attorney’s fees incurred by defendant for

22

appearing at an ENE at which the plaintiff did not appear. Although the plaintiff objects to the

23

hourly rate, it is well within the hourly rate approved by the court for lawyers performing work of

24

this nature for an attorney of Ms. Krincek’s caliber. Wendy Krinccek appeared with her client

25

representative, Wayne Cassard, the Director of Human Relations as ordered. Ms. Krincek is a

26

very experienced lawyer who specializes in the field of employment law. She has appeared before

27

this court for more than 10 years, and the court is familiar with her professionalism and

28

competence.
4

1

Rate determinations in other cases in the District of Nevada have found hourly rates as

2

much as $450 for a partner and $250 for an experienced associate to be the prevailing market rate

3

in this forum. See, e.g., Marrocco v. Hill, 291 F.R.D. 586 (D. Nev. 2013) (finding reasonable

4

hourly rate in community of Nevada to be $375–$400 for partner with over thirty-five years of

5

experience); Agarwal v. Oregon Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 5882710 (D. Nev. Oct. 30, 2013) (finding

6

$300 per partner hour and $260 per associate hour reasonable); Stephens Media LLC v. Citihealth,

7

LLC, 2013 WL 4045926 (D. Nev. Aug. 7, 2013) (finding rates between $400 and $185 to be

8

reasonable); In re USA Commercial Mortg. Co., 2013 WL 3944184 (D. Nev. July 30, 2013)

9

(finding rates between $170 and $420 to be reasonable and $275 to $775 to be unreasonable);

10

Cervantes v. Emerald Cascade Restaurant Sys., Inc., 2013 WL 3878692 (D. Nev. July 25, 2013)

11

(finding $450 to be excessive and reducing it to $275); Plaza Bank v. Alan Green Family Trust,

12

2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58657 (D. Nev. April 24, 2013) (finding $425–$475 for partner time

13

reasonable, but $275-$375 for associate time to be excessive based on the prevailing market rate

14

and adjusting the amount to $250–$325); Aevoe Corp. v. Shenzhen Membrane Precise Electron,

15

Ltd., 2012 WL 2244262 (D. Nev. June 15, 2012) (finding $400 reasonable for a partner in a firm

16

that concentrates on complex intellectual property litigation).

17

The court finds Ms. Krincek’s hourly rate of $350 to be reasonable based on her experience,

18

skill, specialized area of expertise in employment law and professional competence. One hour of

19

her time is awarded as a sanction against the plaintiff for the unnecessary cost defendants incurred

20

preparing for and attending an ENE at which plaintiff chose not to appear in violation of this

21

court’s order. No sanction will be imposed for wasting the court’s time and resources in

22

scheduling, preparing for, and setting aside the time to conduct the ENE. However, Mr. Anoruo

23

is reminded of the warning he received in the order to show cause that failure to comply with

24

applicable court rules, governing law, and the court’s orders may result in sanctions up to and

25

including case ending sanctions such as dismissal of his lawsuit. The court fully appreciates that

26

it is difficult for an individual representing himself to prosecute a lawsuit, and that litigation

27

demands are often time consuming and inconvenient. However, having elected to file this lawsuit

28
5

1

Mr. Anoruo is obligated to learn about and comply with his legal obligations, and comply with

2

this court’s orders.

3

Finally, the court will not reschedule the ENE this late into the litigation. Pursuant to the

4

court’s discovery plan and scheduling order, the discovery cutoff is currently July 18, 2018. The

5

purpose of the early neutral evaluation program is for the evaluating magistrate judge to give the

6

parties a candid evaluation of the merits of their claims and defenses during the initial stages of

7

the case in an effort to resolve the case and avoid or reduce costs and fees incurred. Unless good

8

cause is shown, the early neutral evaluation session must be held by the court not later than 90

9

days after the first responding party appears in a case. See LR 16-6(d). The ENE was set within

10

the time required by LR 16-6(d). The case is now less than 60 days from the close of discovery.

11

Under these circumstances, the court concludes that rescheduling the ENE would not accomplish

12

the purpose of the ENE program.

13

Having reviewed and considered the matter,

14

IT IS ORDERED that sanctions in the amount of $350, representing one hour of

15

reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the defendant for preparing for and attending the ENE at

16

which plaintiff did not appear, are imposed against the plaintiff in favor of defendant.

17

DATED this 24th day of May, 2018.

18
19
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6