Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00165/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00165-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Chip-Tech, Ltd.,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Microsemi Corporation,

Defendant. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV07-165-PHX-FJM (MHB)

ORDER

This matter comes before this Court on an Order to Show Cause (Doc. #53) issued on

May 2, 2008, and after a review of Defendant’s Declaration of Linda Kelly (Doc. #54),

Plaintiff’s Statement of Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Doc. #55), and hearing arguments of

counsel at a Show Cause hearing held this date, the Court makes the following findings:

The parties requested a settlement conference during the Scheduling Conference

before the Honorable Frederick Martone on November 9, 2007 (Doc. #48). Pursuant to that

request and District Judge referral, this Court issued a Settlement Conference Order on

March 21, 2008 (Doc. #52), which ordered the parties to appear for a settlement conference

on May 2, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. Plaintiff appeared with counsel at the conference, and

Defendant’s counsel appeared without a representative of Defendant Corporation. Linda

Kelly, Director of Corporate Finance and Special Projects had planned to attend, but was

over an hour-and-a half late, arriving after the conference had been vacated. She thereafter

presented a detailed sworn declaration as to why she was not present, and this Court has no

reason to dispute her reasons given.

Case 2:07-cv-00165-FJM Document 57 Filed 06/03/08 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 -

The Settlement Conference Order also directed the parties to exchange settlement

correspondence, to include a demand and reply, before the settlement conference. Plaintiff

complied with this direction and Defendant did not. Counsel for Defendant indicated at the

Order to Show Cause hearing that this non-compliance was negligence on his part.

Pursuant to Rule 16(f), Fed.R.Civ.P., this Court finds no intentional conduct or bad

faith on the part of Defendant; however, Plaintiff incurred considerable costs and fees

justifiably relying on the occurrence of the settlement conference on May 2, 2008.

Defendant has not demonstrated that its noncompliance was substantially justified, that other

circumstances exist which makes an award of expenses unjustified, or that the fees requested

are unreasonable. Plaintiff’s request for costs associated with having a second representative

of Plaintiff corporation attend the conference, and the costs associated with a second night

stay in Phoenix, have not been demonstrated to be reasonable. The remaining amount

requested for cost reimbursement is not unreasonable.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant pay to Plaintiff its fees and costs

associated with the vacated settlement conference, in the amount of $375.11 for costs, and

$3,245.00 for fees, for a total of $3,620.11. 

DATED this 2nd day of June, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00165-FJM Document 57 Filed 06/03/08 Page 2 of 2