Malone v. Eden et al
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Chief Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen. Defendant Eden's Counsel's Show Cause Response due by 5/9/2017. (am)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
TONYA MICHELLE MALONE, as
Personal Representative of the Estate of
GERARD WATSON, Deceased,
CIV 15-1009 MV/KBM
GARY EDEN, JACQUELINE R. FLETCHER,
CRST ESPEDITED, INC.
and XYZ CORP.,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
THIS MATTER came before the Court for telephonic status conference set for
today, Tuesday, May 2, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. Participants included Mark Caruso and Paul
Barber for Plaintiff, Darci Carroll for Defendant Fletcher, and Lisa Chavez Ortega for
Defendant CRST. Mark Klecan, counsel for Defendant Gary Eden, failed to call in as
required by the Court’s Order Setting a Status Conference (Doc. 78), nor could he be
reached at his phone number of record.
The Court has discretionary authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)
to sanction a party for failing to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(C).
“[T]here can be no doubt that subsection (f), added as part of the 1983 amendments to
Rule 16, indicates the intent to give courts very broad discretion to use sanctions where
necessary to insure . . . that [lawyers and parties] fulfill their high duty to insure the
expeditious and sound management of the preparation of cases for trial.” Olcott v.
Delaware Flood Co., 76 F.3d 1538, 1555 (10th Cir. 1984) (en banc)). Further the Court
may assess sanctions under its inherent power where an attorney willfully disobeys a
court order. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45 (1991).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that Plaintiff must show cause, in a written
document to be filed with the Court no later than TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2017, why he
should not be sanctioned for his failed to appear for the May 2, 2017 Status
UNITED STATES CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?