Free Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 v. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-00100-ROS-MEA Document 122 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cathleen Channel, et al., Plaintiffs, Home Mortgage, Inc., et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV 03-00100 PHX ROS ORDER

This matter was referred by the Honorable Roslyn O. Silver to the Magistrate Judge to conduct a pretrial

settlement conference.

Pursuant to this Court's order of

January 8, 2007, the parties and their counsel were ordered to attend a settlement conference set before the Court in The

Flagstaff, Arizona, at 10:00 a.m. on March 23, 2007.

order issued January 8, 2007, stated in part: "Counsel shall appear at the settlement conference with the parties or with the person or persons having full authority to settle the case, unless otherwise permitted in advance by the Court." Docket No. 113. The order further required the parties to

file confidential settlement statements with the Court no later than five days before the settlement conference.

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

The

parties,

through

their

counsel,

timely

filed

confidential settlement statements with the Court. Subsequent to the filing of Defendants Carl and Molly Brown's settlement statement, Defendants' counsel contacted the Court's staff and indicated his representation of these Defendants had been terminated by them. Plaintiffs and their counsel all appeared in Flagstaff on March 23, 2007, as ordered. Defendants Carl and Molly Brown A review of the

appeared in Flagstaff, without counsel.

record, however, indicated Defendants' counsel had not filed any motion to withdraw as counsel, nor had Defendants filed any motion or notice they intended to proceed in this matter pro se. Because Defendants appeared without their counsel of record, Defendants' counsel in Phoenix to was the contacted Court by his

telephone.

Counsel

represented

representation had been terminated although he acknowledged he had not submitted a motion to withdraw as counsel. Defense

counsel further represented to the Court that Defendants had terminated counsel's representation on Monday, March 19, 2007. Defendants assert they have made arrangements to be

represented by new counsel in this matter, but the docket does not indicate any Notice of Appearance being filed by new counsel. Defendants averred to the Court that, although they

have retained new counsel, they did not inform new counsel of the scheduled settlement conference, nor did they ask their new counsel to attend the settlement conference. Defendants

Case 2:03-cv-00100-ROS-MEA

- 2 Document 122 Filed 03/29/2007

Page 2 of 4

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

could not provide the Court with the complete last name of their new counsel. The Court finds, based on the record in this matter as it exists on March 23, 2007, that Defendants Carl and Molly Brown are currently pro se. Although Defendants initially indicated a desire to proceed with the scheduled settlement conference without counsel, they subsequently requested a continuance so new counsel may be present for settlement negotiations.

Plaintiffs have no objection to continuing the settlement conference provided Defendants Brown compensate Plaintiffs for the travel costs and attorney's fees incurred for attending the settlement conference as scheduled and as ordered by the Court. Defendants Brown have agreed to Plaintiffs' request to compensate Plaintiffs for their travel costs and attorney's fees as consideration for Plaintiffs not objecting to

continuing the settlement conference. Accordingly, pursuant to the parties stipulation as

stated supra, and pursuant to the inherent powers of the Court, and pursuant to Rule 16(f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, IT IS ORDERED THAT on or before Monday, April 2, 2007, Plaintiffs shall submit to Defendants Brown an itemization of Plaintiffs' travel costs and attorney's fees incurred to attend the schedule settlement conference. Defendants Brown

shall deliver payment in the amount stated in the itemization to Plaintiffs and their counsel no later than April 6, 2007, and Defendants shall file notice with the Court of their compliance in providing said payment on or by April 6, 2007.
- 3 Document 122 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-00100-ROS-MEA

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

Defendants are warned that any failure to comply with any provision of this Order may result in the Court holding them in contempt or ordering or recommending additional sanctions.1 IT IS FURTHER for 10:00 ORDERED a.m. rescheduling on Tuesday, the 1, settlement 2007, in

conference

May

Flagstaff, Arizona. must appear with

Defendants Brown are cautioned that they counsel or they will be deemed to be

representing themselves pro se in this matter.

DATED this 26th day of March, 2007.

See Masonville v. F2 Amer., Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 747-48 (9th Cir. 1989); Heinly v. Checkcept, LLC, 68 Fed. App. 126, 126 (9th Cir. 2003); DC Mgmt. Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 163 F.3d 124, 13536 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court has an inherent power to impose submission to its mandates. See, e.g., Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43, 111 S. Ct. 2123, 2132 (1991).

1

Case 2:03-cv-00100-ROS-MEA

- 4 Document 122 Filed 03/29/2007

Page 4 of 4