Free Order on Motion for Hearing - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On March 4, 2005, in response to a motion filed by Plaintiff, the Court continued previously established pretrial deadlines and set the final pretrial conference for December 19, 2005, and the trial for January 10, 2006. Although a proposed final pretrial order was lodged with the Court, Plaintiff failed to appear for the final pretrial conference on December 19, 2005. As a result of that failure to appear, the Court issued an order that Plaintiff show cause in writing why her case should not be dismissed. Plaintiff subsequently sent to Chambers a Motion to Proceed With January 10, 2006 Bench Trial. This motion has never been filed with the Court and therefore is not before the Court as a motion. Even if it were now to be filed it is moot. On January 6, 2006, Defendants filed a Motion for Dismissal or Sanctions and responded to the previously referenced motion, also noting that it was not filed with the Court. Plaintiff was directed by Court order dated January 6, 2006, to respond to Defendant
Case 2:03-cv-01340-SRB Document 75 Filed 03/08/2006 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) American Express Travel Related Services) ) Co., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) Sybol Terrell-Simms,

No. CV03-1340-PHX-SRB ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Met Life's Motion for Dismissal or Sanctions not later than January 26, 2006. On January 26, 2006, Plaintiff filed her response and a Motion for Defendant's (sic) to Comply With Term Set Forth in March 28, 2005 Order Staying Litigation. In her response Plaintiff requested that her case not be dismissed and attempted to justify her failure to appear at the final pretrial conference by asserting that a person named "Erma," purportedly a member of courthouse staff, told her on the morning of December 19, 2005, that her case was not scheduled that day. While the Court shares Defendant MetLife's skepticism concerning the genuineness of this information, the sanction of dismissal is too harsh a sanction for the Court to impose at this time for the failure of Plaintiff to attend the final pretrial conference. IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant MetLife's Motion for Dismissal or Sanctions. (Doc. 70). However, any future failures to comply with Court orders by Plaintiff will be sanctioned. Those sanctions could be as severe as dismissal of her case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for Defendant's (sic) to Comply With Term Set Forth in March 28, 2005 Order Staying Litigation. There is simply no basis for this Court to conclude that the stipulated stay has not expired. It has. (Doc. 72). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant MetLife's Motion for Scheduling Conference. (Doc. 64). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting this matter for a bench trial on Friday, March 24, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

DATED this 8th day of March, 2006.

-2Case 2:03-cv-01340-SRB Document 75 Filed 03/08/2006 Page 2 of 2