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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?