Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00342/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00342-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Winston and Martha Winston,

Husband and Wife,

Plaintiffs,

v.

American Family Mutual Insurance

Company,

Defendant.

NO. CIV-04-0342-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant American Family Mutual Insurance’s

Motion for Sanctions; Motion to Reset the Final Pretrial Conference and Extend

Deadlines. (Dkt. 99.)

On November 7, 2006, Defendant filed the instant Motion requesting sanctions

against Plaintiffs and their attorney for failure to comply with the Court’s Final Pretrial

Conference Order and orders extending the deadline for the parties to file a proposed

Joint Final Pretrial Order. (Dkt. 99.) Defendant argued that Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to

participate in good faith in the preparation of the proposed Joint Pretrial Order and

requested the Court to dismiss the case. In the alternative, Defendant requested that the 

Final Pretrial Conference set for November 28, 2006 be rescheduled and the deadline for

the parties to submit a proposed Joint Pretrial Order be extended. (Dkt. 99 at 1-2.) 

Case 2:04-cv-00342-SMM Document 119 Filed 02/02/07 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

-2-

On November 14, 2006, the Court vacated the Final Pretrial Conference

scheduled to take place on November 28, 2006, rescheduled the Final Pretrial

Conference for January 17, 2007, and permitted the parties to file a proposed Joint

Pretrial Order no later than December 15, 2006. (Dkt. 100.) These measures were taken

because the Court determined that counsel for both parties had failed to comply with the

Court’s Final Pretrial Conference Order. See id. at 2-3. After reviewing the proposed

Joint Pretrial Order submitted on November 6, 2006, and the exhibits attached to

Defendant’s Motion, the Court was unable to determine whether counsel for one party

was solely at fault. However, because the proposed Joint Pretrial Order failed to comply

with the Court’s Final Pretrial Order, the Court was forced to reschedule the Final

Pretrial Conference and extend the time for the parties to file a proposed Joint Pretrial

Order. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions;

Motion to Reset the Final Pretrial Conference and Extend Deadlines. (Dkt. 99.)

DATED this 1st day of February, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-00342-SMM Document 119 Filed 02/02/07 Page 2 of 2