BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. TAPESTRY AT TOWN CENTER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, 2:16-cv-00255-JCM-NJK. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160615g83
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 13, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 13, 2016
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is an order for the parties to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Docket No. 17. The Court is now satisfied that a sufficient basis exists for diversity jurisdiction and, therefore, the order to show cause is DISCHARGED. At the same time, the Court's efforts to determine subject matter jurisdiction in this matter were obstructed by Saticoy Bay and its counsel, Michael
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is an order for the parties to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Docket No. 17. The Court is now satisfied that a sufficient basis exists for diversity jurisdiction and, therefore, the order to show cause is DISCHARGED. At the same time, the Court's efforts to determine subject matter jurisdiction in this matter were obstructed by Saticoy Bay and its counsel, Michael B..
More
ORDER
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is an order for the parties to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Docket No. 17. The Court is now satisfied that a sufficient basis exists for diversity jurisdiction and, therefore, the order to show cause is DISCHARGED.
At the same time, the Court's efforts to determine subject matter jurisdiction in this matter were obstructed by Saticoy Bay and its counsel, Michael Bohn. The Court is especially troubled by the conduct of Mr. Bohn, who has made inconsistent statements to the Court and failed to properly prepare for hearings or research the basis for filings he has submitted. The Court is also troubled by Mr. Bohn's submission of declarations from his client that (1) were not read by his client and (2) were not based on the personal knowledge of his client despite the contrary representation in the declarations themselves. That is not the conduct the Court expects from attorneys. Mr. Bohn is CAUTIONED that repeating such conduct in the future may result in the imposition of sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
