Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-01427/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-01427-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

James L. Gagan, )

c/o David G. Bray )

Mariscal, Weeks, McIntyre ) No. CIV 99-1427-PHX-RCB

Friedlander, P.A. )

2901 N. Central Ave., )

Suite 200 )

Phoenix, AZ 85012, ) O R D E R

 )

 Plaintiff/Judgment )

 Creditor, )

 )

 vs. )

 )

James A. Monroe )

12880 East Mercer Lane )

Scottsdale, AZ 85259, )

 )

Defendant/Judgment Debtor, )

et al. ) )

Currently pending before the court is a “Motion to

Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant Monroe” filed by his

attorney, David H. Carmichael, on February 1, 2013 (Doc.

451). On February 11, 2013, this court ordered defendant

James A. Monroe to file “[a] response, if any,” to that

withdrawal motion by “no later than fourteen (14) days from 

Case 2:99-cv-01427-RCB Document 472 Filed 03/22/13 Page 1 of 5
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 date of entry of this order[,]” i.e., by February 25,

2013. See Ord. (Doc. 458) at 2:5-7 (emphasis in original). 

To date, Mr. Monroe has not filed a response, timely or

otherwise. 

In the meantime, on February 22, 2013, plaintiff Gagan

filed a motion for an order to show cause (“OSC”),

“request[ing] that this Court issue a rule requiring James

Monroe to appear and show cause, if any, why he should not be

held in contempt of this Court, and if found to be in

contempt that the Court punish him by fine, the costs

incurred by Plaintiff to pursue this matter and for any other

relief the Court deems appropriate.” Mot. (Doc. 464) at

2:20-23. The asserted basis for that motion was defendant

Monroe’s failure “to provide written discovery responses by

February 18, 2013, in violation of this Court’s prior

Orders.” Id. at 2:14-15, ¶ 6 (citations omitted). On

February 27, 2013, this court granted plaintiff’s OSC,

requiring Mr. Monroe to “appear before this Court on the 26th

day of March, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 606, Sandra Day

O’Connor United States Courthouse, 401 West Washington,

Phoenix, Arizona 85003[.]” Ord. (Doc. 466) at 1:23-25. 

As demonstrated below, it is unclear from the record as

presently constituted as to whether Mr. Monroe personally has

had actual notice of any of the following: (1) his counsel’s

motion to withdraw; (2) this court’s related filing order;

(3) the motion for the OSC; and (4) this court’s order

granting the OSC. 

LRCiv 83.3(b) governs attorney withdrawal, among other

Case 2:99-cv-01427-RCB Document 472 Filed 03/22/13 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

things. The client’s “last known residence” is required,

along with other information, to be provided in the

attorney’s supporting “written application” for withdrawal. 

See LRCiv 83.3(b) (emphasis added). Attorney Carmichael’s

“Certification” indicates that Mr. Monroe’s “last known

address . . . is P.O. Box 5322, Scottsdale, AZ[] 85261[,]”

but it does not, as LRCiv 83.3(b) mandates, provide Mr.

Monroe’s “last known residence.” See Cert. (Doc. 451-1) at

1:23-24. In any event, attorney Carmichael’s motion

indicates that on February 1, 2013, a “COPY” of that motion,

addressed to Mr. James Monroe at that P.O. Box address, was

“deposited in the U.S. Mail[.]” See Mot. (Doc. 451) at 2. 

As to this court’s order permitting Mr. Monroe to file a

response to the withdrawal motion, the order itself

explicitly indicated that a copy was to be provided to “James

A. Monroe[,]” among others. Ord. (Doc. 458) at 2:20. The

Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”), originating in the

office of the Clerk of the Court does not mention Mr. Monroe

individually, however. The NEF does indicate, though, that

Mr. Monroe’s current attorney of record, Mr. Carmichael, was

electronically provided with a copy of the order. Doc. 458

NEF at 2. 

The NEF further states that notice of this court’s order

was “sent by other means to those listed below if they are

affected by this filing [.]” Id. (emphasis in original). 

Among those listed are Salt River Cablevision LLC and San

Carlos Cablevision LLC, both “c/o James A[.] Monroe[,]”

although two different addresses are provided – neither of

Case 2:99-cv-01427-RCB Document 472 Filed 03/22/13 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

which is Mr. Monroe’s purported P.O. Box mailing address. Of

more import is the fact that copies of this court’s order

mailed to those two entities, “c/o James A[.] Monroe[,]” were

returned to this court as undeliverable. Doc. 460 at 2 and

3. 

In moving for an OSC, on February 22, 2013, plaintiff

Gagan indicated that a copy of that motion was “placed . . .

in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, first class[,]” and mailed

to, among others, “James A. Monroe 12880 East Mercer Lane

Scottsdale, Arizona 85259[.]” OSC Mot. (Doc. 464) at 4:4-7. 

The NEF indicates that Mr. Monroe’s attorney was

electronically served with the motion for an OSC as well. 

Doc. 464 NEF at 1. On February 27, 2013, the order granting

plaintiff’s motion for an OSC was filed. Ord. (Doc. 466). 

Once again, Mr. Monroe’s attorney was electronically served

with that Order. Doc. 466 NEF at 1.

As stated at the outset, and as the foregoing shows, the

record is unclear as to whether Mr. Monroe has had actual

notice of: (1) his attorney’s motion to withdraw; (2) the

court’s order permitting Mr. Monroe to file a response to

that motion; (3) plaintiff Gagan’s motion for an OSC; and (4)

this court’s order granting that OSC. Counsel should be

prepared to address these actual notice concerns at the OSC,

scheduled for March 26, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 606

of the Sandra Day O’Connor United States Courthouse, 401 West

Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003. At a minimum,

attorney David Carmichael, Mr. Monroe’s current counsel of

record, should be prepared, to the extent possible, to advise

Case 2:99-cv-01427-RCB Document 472 Filed 03/22/13 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

the court, with specificity, as to his personal knowledge of

the facts and circumstances regarding Mr. Monroe’s actual

knowledge of the four items listed above. Similarly, at a

minimum, plaintiff Gagan’s counsel, attorney David Bray, also

should be prepared, to the extent possible, to advise the

court, with specificity, as to his personal knowledge of the

facts and circumstances surrounding actual notice to Mr.

Monroe of the OSC motion and the OSC itself.

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2013.

Copies to counsel of record, James A. Monroe and Kimberly

Sullivan

Case 2:99-cv-01427-RCB Document 472 Filed 03/22/13 Page 5 of 5