Robert A. Slovak vs Golf Course Villas Homeowners Association, et al

Filing 417

ORDERED that Scott D. Johannessen's pro hac vice admission to practice in this case is revoked. It is further ordered that the Court's revocation of Attorney Johannessen's pro hac vice status is stayed until the Court issues an orde r resolving the two pending R&Rs (ECF Nos. 414 , 415 ) as specified herein. It is further ordered that, if Attorney Johannessen ever applies for pro hac vice admission in the District of Nevada in the future, he must disclose this order in, and attach a copy of this order to, his application for pro hac vice admission. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/7/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Case 3:13-cv-00569-MMD-CLB Document 417 Filed 12/07/21 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

ROBERT A. SLOVAK,

Case No. 3:13-cv-00569-MMD-CLB
Plaintiff,

7
v.
8

ORDER REVOKING PRO HAC VICE
STATUS OF ATTORNEY SCOTT D.
JOHANNESSEN

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
9
Defendants.
10
11

This is an attorney discipline matter regarding one of the attorneys of record in this

12

case. The Court admitted Plaintiff’s counsel Scott D. Johannessen pro hac vice. (ECF No.

13

232.) The Court issued an order to show cause as to why the Court should not revoke

14

Attorney Johannessen’s pro hac vice status for violating LR IA 11-7(c). (ECF No. 391

15

(“OSC”).) Attorney Johannessen filed a response and requested a hearing. (ECF No. 409

16

(sealed).)1 The Court then held a hearing (the “Hearing”) on the OSC per Attorney

17

Johannessen’s request. (ECF Nos. 412, 416 (hearing minutes).) As further explained

18

below, the Court revokes Attorney Johannessen’s pro hac vice status in this case but stays

19

the revocation until the Court issues an order on the pending Reports and

20

Recommendations (ECF Nos. 414, 415).

21

The Local Rules give the Court the power to revoke pro hac vice status. See LR IA

22

11-2(f) (“The court may revoke the authority of the attorney permitted to appear under this

23

rule.”); see also LR IA 11-8(c) (providing that the Court may sanction an attorney who fails

24

to comply with the Local Rules); see also Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.3d 1101, 1118

25
26
27
28

1The

Court granted Attorney Johannessen’s motion for leave to file his response
under seal. (ECF Nos. 408, 412.) However, the Court denied Attorney Johannessen’s oral
motion to seal the Hearing. (ECF No. 416.) In addition, this order will not be filed under
seal because it does not contain any excerpts of, or even any references to, the material
Attorney Johannessen sought to file under seal.

Case 3:13-cv-00569-MMD-CLB Document 417 Filed 12/07/21 Page 2 of 5

1

(9th Cir. 2005) (revoking “pro hac vice status falls within ‘the scope of the inherent power

2

of the federal courts’”) (citation omitted); see also id. at 1111-14 (indicating that district

3

courts must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before imposing any sanctions,

4

along with giving specific notice of the sanctions a court is considering). As noted, in the

5

OSC, the Court flagged that Attorney Johannessen violated LR IA 11-7(c) by failing to

6

report two public censures to the Court. (ECF No. 391.) LR IA 11-7(c) provides the

7

following:

8
9
10

If an attorney admitted to practice under these rules is subjected to
professional disciplinary action or convicted of any felony or other
misconduct that reflects adversely on the attorney’s honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as an attorney in Nevada or in another jurisdiction,
the attorney must immediately inform the clerk in writing of the action. Failure
to make this report is grounds for discipline under these rules.

11
12

Id. (emphasis added to aid the discussion below).

13

To start, the Court provided Attorney Johannessen notice and an opportunity to be

14

heard by holding the Hearing. At the Hearing, Attorney Johannessen reiterated the primary

15

argument he raised in response to the OSC: that he did not believe he was required to

16

report the public censures he received in Tennessee because they did not ‘reflect

17

adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness’ as an attorney. However, and as the

18

Court explained at the Hearing, this is an incorrect reading of LR IA 11-7(c). LR IA 11-7(c)

19

is written in the disjunctive. For this reason, an attorney admitted to practice before this

20

Court must report any professional disciplinary action they are subjected to, regardless of

21

whether it reflects adversely on their honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as an attorney.

22

See id. Attorney Johannessen did not report the public censures he received in Tennessee

23

and therefore violated LR IA 11-7(c).2

24

And even if the Court were to agree with Attorney Johannessen’s incorrect reading

25

of LR IA 11-7(c)—and it does not—Attorney Johannessen’s decision not to report his two

26
27
28

2Attorney

Johannessen stated at the Hearing that he agreed both that the public
censures he received in Tennessee were ‘professional disciplinary actions’ and that he
did not report them to the Court.
2

Case 3:13-cv-00569-MMD-CLB Document 417 Filed 12/07/21 Page 3 of 5

1

public censures in Tennessee to this Court was unreasonable. Attorney Johannessen

2

himself pointed to the letter he received from the State Bar of California declining to impose

3

reciprocal discipline on him for the public censures in Tennessee as evidence that the

4

public censures had no bearing on his fitness as an attorney. (ECF No. 409-3.) However,

5

the letter read in pertinent part:

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

(Id. at 4 (emphasis in original).) Thus, while it declined to impose reciprocal discipline in

16

exchange for Attorney Johannessen’s agreement to attend a professional ethics course,

17

the State Bar of California found there was substantial evidence of violations of certain

18

specified rules of professional conduct. (See id.) This letter should have prompted Attorney

19

Johannessen to report his public censures in Tennessee to this Court even if Attorney

20

Johannessen’s incorrect reading of LR IA 11-7(c) was correct. But it is not, and he did not.

21

In addition, Attorney Johannessen’s conduct at the Hearing further convinced the

22

Court that no less severe sanction short of revoking Attorney Johannessen’s pro hac vice

23

status in this case would suffice. Even after the Court stated that LR IA 11-7(c) is

24

disjunctive and thus required him to report his public censures even if they did not reflect

25

adversely on his fitness as an attorney, Attorney Johannessen did not volunteer that he

26

was the subject of other professional disciplinary actions not referred to in the OSC. But

27

then Attorney Johannessen later admitted when directly questioned by the Court that he

28

had been subject to other professional disciplinary actions that he had also not reported
3

Case 3:13-cv-00569-MMD-CLB Document 417 Filed 12/07/21 Page 4 of 5

1

to the Court.3 What’s more, Attorney Johannessen attempted to rely on his incorrect

2

interpretation of LR IA 11-7(c) when the Court asked him to explain why he had not

3

volunteered earlier in the Hearing that he had been professionally disciplined on other

4

occasions beyond the two public censures in Tennessee and did not report those to the

5

Court either. That explanation was particularly unreasonable because the Court had

6

already told Attorney Johannessen his reading of LR IA 11-7(c) was incorrect. Suffice to

7

say, Attorney Johannessen’s testimony at the Hearing was neither credible nor

8

reasonable.

9

While the Court gave him the opportunity (ECF No. 391 at 2), Attorney

10

Johannessen did not propose an alternative sanction short of revocation of his pro hac

11

vice status (ECF No. 409 at 14 n.8 (sealed)). But at the Hearing, Attorney Johannessen

12

asked that the Court allow him to see this case through to its conclusion, which he expects

13

to happen soon. The Court will grant that request only to the extent necessary to allow the

14

Court to issue an order on the two pending Reports and Recommendations (“R&Rs”) from

15

United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF Nos. 414, 415), as the order on

16

them may resolve this case. Attorney Johannessen may file objections to the pending

17

R&Rs by December 17, 2021. Apart from and after that, he may not take any further action

18

in this case. Attorney Johannessen’s pro hac vice status will terminate upon the Court’s

19

issuance of an order accepting or rejecting the two pending R&Rs (ECF Nos. 414, 415).
It is therefore ordered that Scott D. Johannessen’s pro hac vice admission to

20
21

practice in this case is revoked.

22

It is further ordered that the Court’s revocation of Attorney Johannessen’s pro hac

23

vice status is stayed until the Court issues an order resolving the two pending R&Rs (ECF

24

Nos. 414, 415) as specified above.

25

///

26
27
28

3In

response to the Court’s question at the Hearing, Attorney Johannessen
disclosed a disciplinary matter involving a professional privilege tax imposed by the
Tennessee state bar in 2011 or 2012 and reciprocal discipline by the State Bar of
California.
4

Case 3:13-cv-00569-MMD-CLB Document 417 Filed 12/07/21 Page 5 of 5

1

It is further ordered that, if Attorney Johannessen ever applies for pro hac vice

2

admission in the District of Nevada in the future, he must disclose this order in, and attach

3

a copy of this order to, his application for pro hac vice admission.

4

DATED THIS 7th Day of December 2021.

5
6
7

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5