Silva v. Board of County Commissioners for the County of Roosevelt et al

Filing 55

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar AWARDING Expenses under Rule 16(f) (am)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
TANYA SILVA,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 15-cv-1046 MCA/SMV

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS
FOR THE COUNTY OF ROOSEVELT,
ROOSEVELT COUNTY ADULT DETENTION CENTER,
DAVID CASINOVA, DREW WHITE,
CAMERON RIDENOUR, DIVINE ALCANZO,
JANE-JOHN DOES 1-5, AND JANE-JOHN DOES 6-10,
Defendants.
ORDER AWARDING EXPENSES UNDER RULE 16(f)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Affidavit of Fees and Costs
[Doc. 52], filed on December 19, 2016. Defendants appeared at an in-person motions hearing on
November 28, 2016. [Doc. 43]. However, Plaintiff’s counsel, Anna C. Martinez, failed to
appear. Id. The Court ordered Ms. Martinez to show cause at another in-person hearing on
December 12, 2016, why she should not be held in contempt or otherwise sanctioned for her
failure to appear on November 28, 2016.

[Docs. 44, 45].

Ms. Martinez appeared on

December 12, 2016, and on consideration of her argument, the relevant law, and being otherwise
fully advised in the premises, the Court determined that sanctions, in the form of an award of
expenses to Defendants, were appropriate.
(16)(f)(1)(B), 16(f)(2)).

[Doc. 51] (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(A),

Defendants filed their affidavit of such expenses on December 19, 2016. [Doc. 52]. No
objection to the amount or reasonableness of the expenses claimed has been filed, and the time
for objecting has passed. Further, the Court determines that $182.20 is reasonable.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that no later than
February 3, 2017, counsel for Plaintiff, Anna C. Martinez, pay Defendants $182.20, which is
the reasonable expenses incurred in attending the in-person hearing scheduled for November 28,
2016. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(A), (16)(f)(1)(B), 16(f)(2).
Plaintiff and her counsel are admonished that any further failure to comply with the
rules of procedure or orders of this Court may result in further sanctions, up to and
including dismissal of the case with prejudice. See Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916,
921 (10th Cir. 1992).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________
STEPHAN M. VIDMAR
United States Magistrate Judge

2