Calma v. Equifax Information Services, LLC et al

Filing 46

ORDER - The order to show cause is otherwise DISCHARGED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 6/3/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DLS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10

ALI CALMA,

ORDER

v.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES,
LLC, et al.,
Defendant(s).

11
12

Case No. 2:22-cv-02136-RFB-NJK

Plaintiff(s),

On August 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement with Defendant Equifax, indicating

13 that dismissal papers would be filed by September 6, 2023. Docket No. 40. Dismissal papers
14 were not filed. On April 18, 2024, the Court ordered the parties to file dismissal papers by May
15 10, 2024. Docket No. 41. Dismissal papers were not filed and there was no response to that order.
16 Pending before the Court now is an order to show cause why attorneys George Haines and Gerardo
17 Avalos should not be sanctioned. Docket No. 42.1 The order to show cause finally prompted
18 some action and a response. Docket No. 45.
19

The gist of the response to the order to show cause is that a series of calendaring issues and

20 staffing problems led to the multiple failures identified above. See id. The problem with these
21 excuses is that this is not an isolated occurrence. See, e.g., Villamor v. Experian Information
22 Solutions, No. 2:23-cv-00327-JAD-NJK, Docket No. 21 (D. Nev. Oct. 26, 2023). If counsel
23 continue to choose to litigate cases in this forum, then they have an obligation to exercise due care
24 and reasonable professional diligence in each of those cases. Carisbrook Asset Holding Tr. v.
25 SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 2019 WL 2393614, at *3 n.2 (D. Nev. June 6, 2019). The Court will not
26
27

1

The order to show cause is also addressed to defense counsel, but the response to the
order to show cause makes plain that it is Plaintiff’s counsel who bears the brunt of the
28 responsibility, so this order will be focused on those attorneys.
1

1 impose monetary sanctions in this case, but counsel should expect that similar issues arising in
2 the future in any of their cases within this District will result in the imposition of monetary
3 sanctions. See, e.g., Garcia v. GEICO Cas. Co., 2014 WL 7474773, at *3-4 (D. Nev. Jan. 6, 2014)
4 (addressing need for more serious repercussions when similar misconduct continues in the future).
5 For the time-being, however, the Court ADMONISHES attorneys George Haines and Gerardo
6 Avalos.
7

The order to show cause is otherwise DISCHARGED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: June 3, 2024
______________________________
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
2