Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00880/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00880-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

KATHLEEN C. CAMPBELL et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JUDY FERNANDO-SHOLES et al., 

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-0880-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order Continuing the April 2, 2007

Preliminary Pretrial Conference, or in the Alternative, an Order Granting Permission for

Plaintiffs and their Counsel to Attend the Preliminary Pretrial Conference by Telephone (Doc.

49). 

Plaintiffs' Counsel has provided the Court with numerous reasons why the Court should

grant his request. First, Plaintiffs' Counsel is scheduled for court appearances in Oakland

County, California on the morning of April 2, 2007. Illustrating the difficulty in being in two

places at once, the request is well taken by the Court. Second, Plaintiff's Counsel explains that

there is no opposing counsel to confer with at this time regarding the pretrial conference.

Defendant Oasis at Wild Horse Ranch, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, expressly

filed its answer in this case "pro per", disregarding the rule that states that as an L.L.C., Oasis

cannot appear except through counsel. Moreover, Defendant Bruce A. Sholes expressly

purported to only "specially appear" on Oasis's behalf in filing the May 2006 Motion to Dismiss

(Doc. 40). Consequently, there is no attorney of record representing Oasis available for

Case 2:05-cv-00880-SMM Document 54 Filed 03/29/07 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

27

28

- 2 -

Plaintiffs' counsel to meet with in order to comply with the Court's February 28, 2007 Order.

Assuming arguendo that Sholes was deemed to have represented Oasis at one time, a

representative of Oasis has contacted Plaintiffs' Counsel and unequivocally expressed to

Plaintiffs' counsel that Sholes no longer represents Oasis and that he has been "fired" from

Oasis. Furthermore, Sholes is precluded from representing Oasis as he was suspended from the

practice of law by the State Bar of Arizona. (Doc. 51). In sum, Plaintiffs' Counsel contends that

holding a Preliminary Pretrial Conference on April 2, 2007, while Oasis still lacks

representation would defeat the purpose of a Preliminary Pretrial Conference. He has been

unable to meet with opposing counsel to create a proposed case management plan and believes

that it would be a waste of the Court's valuable time and resources. Finally, Plaintiffs' Counsel

has represented to the Court that should the Court grant the continuance, Oasis has tentatively

retained a Tucson attorney who has agreed to substitute into this case after the continuance in

order to allow for sufficient time to familiarize himself with the case. The Court finds that the

addition of new counsel could significantly alter the direction of the case. 

Accordingly, for good cause shown, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order Continuing the April

2, 2007 Preliminary Pretrial Conference is GRANTED (Doc. 49).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial Conference is

CONTINUED to Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. from April 2, 2007, at 2:00 p.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order Granting Permission

for Plaintiffs and their Counsel to Attend the Preliminary Pretrial Conference by Telephone is

DENIED as MOOT (Doc. 49). 

DATED this 28th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-00880-SMM Document 54 Filed 03/29/07 Page 2 of 2