Armendariz et al v. Santa Fe County Board of Commissioners et al

Filing 141

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Chief District Judge William P. Johnson GRANTING 124 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 112 Motion to Dismiss Party - the Claims of James Wheeler or, Alternatively, for Entry of Order to Show Cause Why the Claims of James Wheeler Should not be Dismissed and/or Other Sanctions. (mag)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
_______________________________

GABRIEL ARMENDARIZ,
ERIC DION COLEMAN, JACOB GOMEZ,
TONY LOVATO, MATTHEW J. LUCERO,
EDWARD R. MANZANARES, JOE MARTINEZ,
CHRISTOPHER MAVIS, PHILIP TALACHY,
FELIPE J. TRUJILLO, and JOSEPH VIGIL,
on their own behalf and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 1:17-cv-00339-WJ-LF

SANTA FE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
and MARK GALLEGOS, in his individual and official capacity,
and INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL COATINGS, LLC,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time,
filed July 20, 2018 (Doc. 124).

Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and applicable law, the

Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion.
BACKGROUND
This case is a putative class action arising from Defendants’ renovation of the shower
facilities at the Santa Fe Adult Correctional Facility (“ACF”) in 2014 when Plaintiffs and the
class members were inmates at the facility. Plaintiffs allege that they were exposed to dust,
debris, and hazardous chemicals, which caused them injury, and assert both federal civil rights
and state law claims against Defendants.

Plaintiffs seek a two-week extension of time within which to file their response to the
Motion to Dismiss the claims of James Wheeler, or Alternatively, for Entry of an Order to Show
Cause Why the Claims of James Wheeler Should Not Be Dismissed and/or Other Sanctions
(Doc. 112). Plaintiffs base the request on time needed due to a change in law firms by one of
Plaintiffs’ attorneys and summer travel plans. According to Plaintiffs, the County Defendants
(Santa Fe Board of Commissioners and Mark Gallegos) will agree only to a one-week extension.
Defendants view the request as yet another form of procrastination by Plaintiff Wheeler
who has failed to appear for his deposition in this case and whose conduct is the subject of
Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss (Doc. 112). The Court does not intend to merge the
merits of that motion with a request for an extension of time where the difference between the
parties is only one week, and where Plaintiffs have already filed the response on the date they
requested. See Doc. 137 (Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss).

Therefore, Plaintiffs are granted the

extension they request in this motion.
The Court observes that there appears to be a history in this case with certain Plaintiffs
failing to show up for scheduled depositions or for otherwise failing to participate in their
litigation responsibilities. See, e.g., Docs. 85, 117, 127. The Court takes this opportunity to
remind counsel that motions seeking judicial relief based on a plaintiff’s willful failure to fully
participate in the discovery process or otherwise cause delay in the litigation of this case will be
considered carefully and fairly but always with an eye to the Court resources that are taken up by
such motions, which is significant given the heavy docket under which this Court labors. Any
conduct by a plaintiff which appears to purposefully hinder litigation in this case or to delay this
Court’s scheduling orders will be viewed by this Court as potential grounds for sanctions,
including dismissal. For illustrative purposes, the Court refers counsel to another case that was

2

before the undersigned, where certain plaintiffs in a putative class action were dismissed for
similar conduct.

See Aguilar et al. v. Management & Training Corp., No. 16-CV-00050

WJ/GJF, Doc. 97 (dismissing plaintiffs with and without prejudice). The Court suggests that
counsel for Plaintiffs advise their clients that willful obstruction of the discovery process and
similar conduct may result in consequences they neither expect nor desire.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is GRANTED, with the caveat that
the Court will look closely at future requests for extensions in this case, in particular to assure
that the requests are not an attempt to delay these proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3