Acevedo-Lopez v. H&R Block Tax Services, LLC

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Sanctions in the amount of $500 must be paid by November 16, 2015.Signed by US Magistrate Judge Silvia Carreno-Coll on 11/10/2015.(NBB)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

CAROLINA ACEVEDO -LÓPEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIV . NO .: 15-1240(SCC)

H&R BLACK TAX SERVS.,
LLC,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In a memorandum and opinion dated September 30, 2015,
I denied Plaintiff Carolina Acevedo-López’s motion for partial
summary judgment. Docket No. 27. Suspecting that the
reasoning of that opinion precluded her claim entirely, I
ordered Acevedo to show cause why her complaint should not
be dismissed. Id. Acevedo did not respond to that first show
cause order, and so on October 19, 2015, I entered an order
dismissing Acevedo’s complaint with prejudice and ordering
her counsel, Atty. Juan Carlos Ramírez-Ramos, to show cause

ACEVEDO-LOPEZ v. H&R BLOCK

Page 2

why sanctions should not be entered against him for failing to
respond to the court’s order. Docket No. 29.
Atty. Ramírez did not respond to the second show cause
order either, and so on October 28, 2015, I fined him $500 and
ordered him to explain his failures to respond to the first and
second show cause orders. Docket No. 30. I made these
responses due October 29, 2015, and ordered that the sanctions
increase by $50 each day that they went unpaid. Id. Atty.
Ramírez nevertheless did not respond to the third order to
show cause either, and so a fourth was entered; this time, he
was ordered to attend a hearing on November 6, 2015. Docket
No. 31.
That hearing was held as scheduled.1 According to Atty.
Ramírez, his failure to respond to the Court’s orders was
caused by Gmail’s inexplicable decision to forward the Court’s
electronic notifications to his spam folder, something that it
had not previously done. Atty. Ramírez stated that he had not
received any of the Court’s notifications since the initial
scheduling conference held on September 8, 2015. Thus, for

1.

Atty. Ramírez appeared fifteen or twenty minutes late for the show
cause hearing. H e blam ed this fact on traffic, but given the
circumstances he ought to have been more focused on timeliness.

ACEVEDO-LOPEZ v. H&R BLOCK

Page 3

almost two months he had been in the dark as to this case, not
thinking he ought to investigate why nothing had been heard
from the Court or the defendant. For this reason, Atty. Ramírez
was not aware even of the denial of his client’s motion for
partial summary judgment, nor had he seen or responded to
the defendant’s motion to compel. See Docket No. 24. It seems
Atty. Ramírez only showed up for today’s hearing because
counsel for the defendant faxed him a copy of the Court’s most
recent order.
Though I am inclined to believe Atty. Ramírez’s explanation for his noncompliance, I am unmoved by it. Attorneys’
duty to prosecute their cases and comply with orders survives
technical problems, especially when the noncompliance is as
egregious and longstanding as it was here. I will thus not lift
the sanctions against Atty. Ramírez, though I will waive the
enhancements for late payment; he remains fined $500, which
must be paid by November 16, 2015.
Counsel for the defendant also appeared at the hearing and
informed the Court that despite the granting of its motion to
compel on October 19, 2015, Acevedo has not yet responded.
It thus asked that all objections to its interrogatories be deemed
waived, in light of which request Atty. Ramírez promised to

ACEVEDO-LOPEZ v. H&R BLOCK

Page 4

answer the questions completely, not relying on objections.
Atty. Ramírez also stated that responses to the interrogatories
and requests for production would be delivered the day of the
hearing, November 6, 2015. The only outstanding issue
regarding the production would then be Acevedo’s client list,
which Atty. Ramírez promised to produce by November 13,
2015, in Microsoft Excel format. The defendant also asked that
its requests for admission be deemed admitted, but I denied
that request on account of the prejudice it would cause
Acevedo; rather, Atty. Ramírez was given three days—that is
until Wednesday, November 11, 2015—to answer the requests.
Thus no further sanctions shall be entered against Atty.
Ramírez, but he is warned that the Court will not take lightly
further failures to comply with his obligations.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 10th day of November, 2015.
S/ SILVIA CARREÑO-COLL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE