United States District Court, D. Nevada
J. KOPPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the Court is an order for Plaintiff to show cause for
violating the Court's order to either enter the
appearance of new counsel or file a notice of intent to
proceed pro se in the instant case. Docket No. 151. Plaintiff
has responded. Docket No. 152.
case was initially filed on September 15, 2017. Docket No.
1-1. It was removed to this Court on November 8, 2017. Docket
No. 1. The case has, therefore, been pending for over a year
and a half.
case has been riddled with discovery violations and failure
to participate in discovery by Plaintiff. See,
e.g., Docket Nos. 75, 86, 94, 99, 142. These
violations resulted in delay and, eventually, the withdrawal
of representation by Plaintiff's attorney. On August 23,
2018, Plaintiff's attorney filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel due to, inter alia, “irreconcilable
differences [with Plaintiff] regarding discoverable material
… and the disclosures necessary pursuant to FRCP
26…” Docket No. 101 at 2. See also
Docket No. 58. After this motion was filed, Plaintiff assured
her attorney that she would participate in the discovery
process in good faith going forward; therefore, counsel
withdrew his motion. Docket No. 101 at 2-3; Docket No. 69. On
November 28, 2018, however, counsel filed a renewed motion to
withdraw. Docket No. 101. Counsel represented that Plaintiff
“has been ordered by this Court on multiple occasions
to participate in the discovery process and has been
sanctioned for failing to do so.” Id. at 3.
Counsel further submitted that, despite his best efforts,
Plaintiff “failed to follow critical advice from
counsel concerning discovery and the litigation
Court set a hearing on counsel's motion to withdraw for
December 20, 2018. Docket No. 102. The Court ordered,
inter alia, that Plaintiff must appear in person at
the hearing. Id. at 1. The Court further warned
that, “THERE WILL BE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THE
APPEARANCE REQUIREMENTS OF …
PLAINTIFF[.]” Id. (emphasis in
original). On December 4, 2018, Plaintiff's counsel filed
a notice certifying that he served the Court's order on
Plaintiff. Docket No. 105.
December 20, 2018, the Court held a hearing on counsel's
motion to withdraw. Docket No. 126. Despite the Court's
order, and the representations of counsel as to
Plaintiff's knowledge of the hearing and her requirement
to attend, Plaintiff failed to appear. Id. After
hearing from counsel, the Court granted the motion to
withdraw. Id. The Court ordered that Plaintiff had
until January 22, 2019, to either retain new counsel who must
file a notice of appearance on the docket or to file a notice
of intent to proceed pro se. Id.
December 20, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause,
no later than January 5, 2019, why the Court should not
sanction her for violating the Court's order to appear at
the hearing. Docket No. 128. Plaintiff responded to the order
to show cause on January 7, 2019. Docket No. 135. In her
response, Plaintiff submitted that her prior attorney did not
provide her with “proper notice” that he had
moved to withdraw from the instant case and that she would
have been present at the hearing had she known of it.
Id. at 1. Plaintiff also made representations and
requests that were not relevant to the Court's order to
show cause. Id. at 1-2. On January 24, 2019,
Plaintiff filed an amended response to the Court's order
to show cause. Docket No. 140. In addition to her prior
representations, Plaintiff requested 90 days to retain new
counsel. Id. at 2.
January 28, 2019, the Court issued an order finding the
Plaintiff's statement regarding lack of notice about the
hearing on her attorney's motion to withdraw as counsel
conflicted with the representations made at the hearing by
both her prior counsel and defense counsel. Docket No. 141 at
1. Nonetheless, the Court declined to issue sanctions at that
time. Id. The Court did, however, admonish Plaintiff
that she must comply with all orders issued by this Court,
and otherwise discharged the order to show cause.
Id. at 2. Finally, the Court granted in part
Plaintiff's request for an extension of time regarding
new counsel. Id. at 1. The Court allowed Plaintiff
until February 21, 2019 to either file a notice of intent to
proceed pro se or to have new counsel file a notice
of appearance. Id.
failed to comply with the Court's order regarding new
counsel. See Docket. Accordingly, on February 26,
2019, the Court issued the instant order to show cause.
Docket No. 151.
response, Plaintiff submits that she has not received notice
from the Court regarding any orders prior to the instant
order to show cause. Docket No. 152 at 1. Plaintiff further
submits, despite her long history of noncompliance and
discovery violations, that she wants the chance to show the
Court that she will comply with the requirements of
prosecuting the instant case. Id. at 2.
Additionally, Plaintiff submits that she has contacted
several attorneys and requests a 90-day extension to the
deadline for entry of appearance of new counsel. Id.
Further, Plaintiff asks the Court for leeway to care for the
health of her parents. Id. Finally, Plaintiff makes
requests regarding discovery that are not applicable to her
response to the Court's order to show cause. Id.
Plaintiff's response to the Court's order to show
cause, she continues the pattern she has established in this
case of blaming others for any problems that occur. For
example, she blames her former attorney for her discovery
violations, and she claims she has failed to comply with more
than one deadline set by the Court because she did not
receive the Court's orders.
Plaintiff's responsibility to ensure that her correct
address is listed on the docket, and that she receives mail
at that address. See LR IA 3-1. The docket lists
the address that Plaintiff provided, and the Court will not
accept the failure to receive orders or other filings sent to