Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Manes v. Stetson Desert Project LLC, CV-18-04664-PHX-DJH. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Arizona Number: infdco20190610965 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 07, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 07, 2019
Summary: ORDER DIANE J. HUMETEWA , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant's Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause. (Doc. 23). Defendants' counsel, Laurent R.G. Badoux, failed to appear for the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference at 10:30 a.m. on June 6, 2019. (Docs. 21, 22). This was the second setting of the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, which was originally set for June 3, 2019, but had to be reset because the parties failed to comply with Court Order and submit a Joint Rule 26(f) Report.
More

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant's Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause. (Doc. 23). Defendants' counsel, Laurent R.G. Badoux, failed to appear for the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference at 10:30 a.m. on June 6, 2019. (Docs. 21, 22). This was the second setting of the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, which was originally set for June 3, 2019, but had to be reset because the parties failed to comply with Court Order and submit a Joint Rule 26(f) Report. (Doc. 16). Thus, this was Mr. Badoux's second failure to comply with a Court Order in a matter of weeks.

Mr. Badoux stated that he failed to appear for the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference because of a mistake by the clerk entering the information in the firm's internal docketing and calendaring software system. (Doc. 23 at 2). The Court acknowledges that calendaring mistakes happen. However, it is the Court's view that calendaring mistakes are not excusable neglect. Moreover, the Court finds particularly unpersuasive the sort of explanation provided here: that someone else (in this case firm staff) miscalendared the time of the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference. Attorneys may look to others to assist with calendaring matters, but they do so at their own peril. Ultimately, it is the attorney—the individual who is licensed to practice law—who bears the responsibility for keeping track of the deadlines set by the Court and by applicable law. Thus, it was, and continues to be, Mr. Badoux's responsibility to ensure that he complies with all Court ordered deadlines.

The Court finds that there is good cause to sanction Mr. Badoux for his failure to comply with multiple Court orders. Mr. Badoux's litigation hourly rate is $440.00; therefore, the Court will impose a sanction upon Mr. Badoux in the amount of $440.00.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Court hereby imposes a sanction upon Defendants' counsel, Laurent R.G. Badoux. Mr. Badoux shall submit a check within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, in the amount of $440.00 payable to: Clerk, U.S. District Court, and mail it to the Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, Attn: Finance, 401 W. Washington, Street, Suite 130, Phoenix, Arizona 85003.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Badoux shall provide a copy of this Order to Mr. Paul Wiser, Managing Partner of Buchalter's Scottsdale office; Mr. Peter Bertrand, Chairman of Buchalter's Board of Directors; and Mr. Adam Bass, Buchalter's President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Operating Officer.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer