Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08023/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08023-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

---

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

Kirk Nowak,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Isles Homeowners’ Association, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-8023-PCT-FJM

ORDER

The undersigned Magistrate Judge has received from pro se Plaintiff an unsolicited and prohibited ex parte e-mail in his chamber’s e-mailbox. Though the undersigned is neither the assigned trial judge nor has the case been referred to him, this Judge

was assigned to conduct a settlement conference in May 2012 which was never held. 

Because Plaintiff’s e-mail does not reflect a copy was sent to counsel of record, the

Court deems the letter to be an innocent but prohibited ex-parte communication with the

Court. See Best Western Intern., Inc. v. Melbourne Hotel Investors, LLC, 2008 WL

2945513, at *1 n. 1 (D. Ariz. July 28, 2008) (“[E]x parte communications are barred even

if it is not clear that the lawyer intended to influence the judge.”) (citation omitted); see

also San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Bolton ex rel. County of Maricopa, 194 Ariz. 68, 977

P.2d 790, 794 (Ariz. 1999) (“[W]ith some exceptions, ‘all parties or their lawyers shall be

included in communications with a judge.’” (citation omitted)). “Canon 3(B)(7) generally

prohibits a judge from initiating, permitting, or considering communications made

‘outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding.’” San

Carlos Apache Tribe, 194 Ariz. 68, 977 P.2d at 794; see also Church of Scientology

Case 3:12-cv-08023-FJM Document 26 Filed 01/18/13 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 -

Intern. v. Kolts, 846 F.Supp. 873, 877 n. 2 (C.D. Cal. 1994). Like the lawyer in San

Carlos Apache Tribe, Plaintiff is cautioned against initiating ex parte communications

with an adjudication judge. Id. at 796.

Except for this Order, the e-mail will be filed under seal with no action or response

taken by the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is directed to comply with Rule

5(a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P., regarding all future pleadings, letters, e-mails or other writings in

this matter and to reflect such mailing or delivery on the filing or document itself. Unless

expressly authorized by the judge or rule, all future pleadings, letters, e-mails or other

writings in this case must not mailed or delivered to such judge.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to seal Plaintiff’s email and mail or electronically deliver a complete copy of Plaintiff’s email and this Order

to Plaintiff and counsel of record. This Order, however, is not sealed.

Dated this 18th day of January, 2013.

Case 3:12-cv-08023-FJM Document 26 Filed 01/18/13 Page 2 of 2