Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02005/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02005-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

09cv2005 JM (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOURDES SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

GREEN POINT MORTGAGE FUNDING,

INC., BANK OF AMERICA HOME

LOANS, AZTEC FORECLOSURE

CORPORATION, OCWEN LOAN

SERVICING, LLC, COASTAL EMPIRE

MORTGAGE, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., as

nominee for RWPO III, LLC as beneficiary

and DOES 1-20, inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09cv2005 JM (WMc)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE RE: DISMISSAL OF ACTION

UNDER RULE 37 OF THE FEDERAL

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

I.

INTRODUCTION

On January 10, 2011, the Court held an Order to Show Cause Hearing (“OSC”) in the abovecaptioned matter. The Court convened the January 10, 2011 OSC because Plaintiff’s attorney, Kent

Wilson, failed to appear for a telephonic Status Conference. For the reasons set forth below, the

Court REPORTS that Attorney Kent Wilson is in civil contempt of Court and RECOMMENDS

that this case be dismissed for failure to comply with the court’s discovery orders as well as failure

to prosecute under Rules 16 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

///

///

Case 3:09-cv-02005-JM-WMC Document 63 Filed 01/10/11 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 09cv2005 JM (WMc)

II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On September 14, 2009, Attorney Kent Wilson filed the verified complaint of Plaintiff

Lourdes Sanchez against Defendants alleging violations of the following federal statutes: (1) the

Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601; and (2) the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12

U.S.C.A. § 2601. The complaint’s prayer seeks statutory and general damages as well as a

rescission. [Second Amended Complaint at Doc. No. 34.] 

III.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE

On September 1, 2010, the Court issued an Order Setting Rule 26 Compliance and Notice

of Case Management Conference. [Doc. No. 54.] As set forth in the September 1, 2010 Order, the

parties were instructed to participate in a Rule 26(f) conference no later than September 20, 2010.

[Doc. No. 54, at 1:27.] On September 27, 2010, Defendants filed an Ex Parte Application for

Continuance of the scheduled Case Management Conference and deadline for submission of a joint

discovery plan. Defendants requested the continuance because Plaintiff’s counsel failed to meet and

confer with defense counsel regarding initial disclosures and informed opposing counsel via email

that he was no longer licensed to practice law in California and intended to send withdrawal notices

to the Court. [See Defendant’s Ex Parte App., Doc. No. 56 at 2:4-2:13.] 

After considering the Defendant’s ex parte application, the Court vacated the in-person Case

Management Conference and held a status conference telephonically in lieu of a lengthy or costly

in-person appearance for the parties. [Doc. No. 58.] During the October 8, 2010 teleconference, the

Court spoke with counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel stated that while he had

not yet filed a notice of withdrawal, he had a voluntary resignation pending with the State Bar of

California. Based on those representations from Plaintiff’s attorney, the Court ordered a further

telephonic status conference in 60 days to learn the progress of the intended notice of withdrawal

and resignation. The Court’s order following the telephonic status conference set a further

teleconference for December 8, 2010. [Doc. No. 59.] 

Case 3:09-cv-02005-JM-WMC Document 63 Filed 01/10/11 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 09cv2005 JM (WMc)

B. FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE

As noted above, a telephonic Status Conference was scheduled for December 8, 2010 in the

above-entitled case. The Court’s Order, dated October 8, 2010, stated:

On October 8, 2010, the Court held a telephonic Status Conference. Kent Wilson, Esq.,

appeared for Plaintiff. Rebecca Wilson, Esq., appeared for Defendant. After hearing from

counsel of record, the Court will hold a further telephonic Status Conference on December

8, 2010 at 9:15 a.m. Counsel for Defendant Ocwen is ordered to contact opposing counsel

on the day and at the time indicated above and then initiate a joint call to chambers at 619-

557-6624.” 

[Doc. No. 59.]

Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear on the teleconference and failed to notify the Court he would not

participate. 

C. FAILURE TO APPEAR AT OSC HEARING 

After Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to appear, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause hearing

on January 10, 2011 requiring Plaintiff’s counsel to personally appear and explain why he did not

participate in the scheduled telephonic Status Conference. The Order to Show Cause stated:

“The OSC hearing will be held on January 10, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. in the chambers of

Magistrate Judge McCurine, 940 Front St., Courtroom C, San Diego, CA 92101. IT IS

FURTHER ORDERED that on or before January 5, 2011, Plaintiff’s counsel shall

provide a meaningful written response explaining the failure to appear. The response shall

be filed electronically and served on opposing counsel.”

[Doc. No. 61 at 2:5-9.]

Plaintiff’s counsel did not submit a response to the Court explaining his failure to appear

telephonically for the Status Conference. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear at the

Order to Show Cause hearing. He neither notified the Court he was unable to appear, nor requested

an alternate hearing date. 

IV.

Case 3:09-cv-02005-JM-WMC Document 63 Filed 01/10/11 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 09cv2005 JM (WMc)

LEGAL STANDARD

According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f), if a party: (1) fails to obey a

scheduling or pretrial order; or (2) fails to appear at a scheduling or pretrial conference, the

Court may order sanctions, including dismissal of the action. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 16(f) (stating

“on motion or on its own, the court may issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule

37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii).) Specifically, under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v) the Court may issue an order

“dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part” for failure to comply with the court’s

orders. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). V.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to comply with two of this Court’s Orders requiring his

appearance at a StatuscConference and an OSC hearing falls within the scope of Rules 16 and 37

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

First, despite the Court’s order directing the parties to begin initial discovery under Rule

26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to meet and confer with

Defendant regarding the parties’ exchange of initial disclosures. 

Second, Plaintiff’s counsle failed to appear either telephonically for the December 8,

2010 Status Conference. He did not notify the Court of an inability to attend, nor did he request

an alternate date.

Third, the Order to Show Cause dated December 8, 2010 required Plaintiff’s counsel to

appear on January 10, 2011 to show cause why he failed to attend the Status Conference. 

Plaintiff was further ordered to file a response with the Court explaining why he failed to appear

at the Status Conference. Plaintiff’s counsel failed to provide a response to the Court and again

failed to appear at the OSC hearing on January 10, 2011.

Despite the numerous opportunities the Court has provided for Plaintiff’s counsel to

contact the Court and participate in the prosecution of this case, Plaintiff’s counsel has not

complied with the court’s pre-trial scheduling order and has failed to appear at two consecutive

court conferences. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss the instant action

for the continued failures to appear.

Case 3:09-cv-02005-JM-WMC Document 63 Filed 01/10/11 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 09cv2005 JM (WMc)

VI.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER THEREON

For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to comply

with the scheduling and pretrial orders of Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr. Therefore, IT

IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) approving and adopting this

Report and Recommendation, and (2) dismissing the action.

IT IS ORDERED that no later than January 25, 2011, any party to this action may file

written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the

Court and served on all parties no later than February 1, 2011. The parties are advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections

on appeal of the Court’s Order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998);

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 10, 2011

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

Case 3:09-cv-02005-JM-WMC Document 63 Filed 01/10/11 Page 5 of 5