Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02144/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02144-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

1 06cv2144-LAB(NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD J. HIESHETTER, JR. et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BUSINESS PROPERTIES, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.06cv2144-LAB (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO HAVE

THE COURT RECONSIDER ORDER

OF SANCTIONS AGAINST

ATTORNEY RODDY

[Doc. No. 13]

Before the Court in the above-captioned matter is Defendant Business Properties’ Ex Parte

Application [Doc. No. 13] to have the Court reconsider its May 4, 2007 Order Assessing Sanctions

against defense counsel Michael G. Roddy [Doc. No. 11]. For the following reasons, the Court

GRANTS the Ex Parte Application and AMENDS the May 4, 2007 Order Assessing Sanctions

accordingly. 

BACKGROUND

An in-person Settlement Disposition Conference (“SDC”) was scheduled in the above-captioned

matter on April 18, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. before this Court. Dismissal papers were not filed prior to the date

of the conference, and in violation of this Court’s March 23, 2007 Notice and Order setting the

conference [Doc. No. 7], counsel for both parties failed to appear. Accordingly, the Court issued a

Notice and Order setting a Show Cause Hearing Re: Sanctions for May 4, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. [Doc. No.

8]. Counsel were instructed in the Court’s order to appear in person for the hearing, as well as to submit

Case 3:06-cv-02144-LAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 05/17/07 Page 1 of 4
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 06cv2144-LAB(NLS)

declarations on or before April 27, 2007 outlining any potential justification for their failure to abide by

the Court’s previous order. On April 27, 2007, Plaintiff’s counsel, Theodore A. Pinnock, filed a

declaration in compliance with the Court’s order [Doc. No. 10]. Defense counsel, Michael G. Roddy,

did not file a declaration. On May 4, 2007, Mr. Pinnock appeared on time for the 9:30 a.m. Show Cause

Hearing. The Court convened the hearing at approximately 9:45 a.m., after waiting fifteen minutes for

Mr. Roddy to appear. Mr. Roddy failed to appear for the hearing. 

Following the hearing, the Court issued an order assessing sanctions in the amount of $500 against

Mr. Roddy for failing to appear as ordered by the Court at either the April 18, 2007 settlement

disposition conference or the May 4, 2007 Show Cause Hearing. Mr. Roddy was instructed in the order

to pay the sanction to the Clerk of Court on or before June 1, 2007. (May 4, 2007 Order Assessing

Sanctions, Doc. No. 11, 2.) On May 15, 2007, Mr. Roddy filed the current Ex Parte Application as well

as several exhibits in support, requesting that the Court reconsider its May 4, 2007 order. 

DISCUSSION

The Court may relieve a party from a previously issued order for reasons of mistake, inadvertence, 

or excusable neglect. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). Here, Mr. Roddy requests reconsideration of the Court’s

May 4, 2007 Order on several grounds: (1) the case was settled as to his client, Business Properties, on

January 17, 2007, and Mr. Roddy was under the impression that Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Pinnock, would

handle all necessary arrangements with the Court to ensure the case was properly dismissed as to his

client; (2) upon receipt of the appropriate closing documents from Mr. Pinnock on March 22, 2007,

which were promptly signed and transferred back to Mr. Pinnock’s office, Mr. Roddy believed that the

matter was closed as to his client; (3) upon receipt of notice from the Court of the April 18, 2007

settlement disposition conference, Mr. Roddy assumed that this conference did not involve him or his

client since they had settled the matter and signed the appropriate dismissal papers; (4) upon receipt of

notice from the Court of the May 4, 2007 Show Cause Hearing Re: Sanctions, Mr. Roddy again did not

believe that the order applied to him or to his client because they had signed the dismissal papers

previously. Mr. Roddy also notes in the ex parte application that he was extremely busy at the time and

he was having a hard time keeping his ADA cases straight. (Defendant’s Ex Parte Application, 2-3.) 

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-02144-LAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 4
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 06cv2144-LAB(NLS)

The crux of Mr. Roddy’s argument in support of reconsideration appears to be that because he

settled the case as to his client, and subsequently ensured that dismissal papers presented to him by

Plaintiff’s counsel were signed and returned to Plaintiff’s counsel for filing, he proceeded under the

mistaken belief that the case had been dismissed as to his client, and no further appearances were

required of him before the Court. This argument does not persuade the Court. Mr. Roddy admits to

having received notice of the Court’s orders requiring his appearance on both April 18, 2007 and May 4,

2007. Had Mr. Roddy taken the time to examine the docket of the case, he would have discovered that

dismissal papers were not filed prior to the April 18 settlement disposition conference, thereby

triggering the Court’s requirement that attorneys for all parties appear in person to inform the Court of

the status of settlement. In addition, had he examined the docket of the case upon receiving notice of

the May 4, 2007 Show Cause Hearing, Mr. Roddy would have discovered that although a Joint Motion

to Dismiss was filed on April 19, 2007 by Plaintiff’s counsel [Doc. No. 9], the motion was pending, had

not been ruled upon by the presiding District Judge, and therefore the case was not closed, and the Show

Cause hearing was scheduled to go forward. 

In an action where a defendant has answered, the action cannot be dismissed except by the court’s

order. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a). Therefore, Mr. Roddy’s argument that he presumed signature of dismissal

papers and transfer of those documents back to Plaintiff’s counsel “closed the matter” as to his client

belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the Civil

Local Rules of this Court. The Court finds that Mr. Roddy’s lack of familiarity with the Federal Rules

and his reliance on assumptions that the case would be closed and subsequent hearings did not require

his appearance does not constitute the type of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect that warrants

complete relief from this Court’s order assessing sanctions. Nevertheless, the Court appreciates Mr.

Roddy’s efforts to resolve this case thoroughly, amicably, and efficiently, as well as his sincere apology

for the inconvenience caused to the Court by his failure to comply with the Court’s orders. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Ex Parte Application for reconsideration of the order

assessing sanctions, and AMENDS the May 4, 2007 order as follows:

1. On or before June 1, 2007, Mr. Roddy shall file a Declaration that he has reviewed

thoroughly the Civil Local Rules of this Court, Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Case 3:06-cv-02144-LAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 05/17/07 Page 3 of 4
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 06cv2144-LAB(NLS)

Procedure, and the previous orders of this Court that gave rise to the Court’s sanctions

hearing and the order assessing sanctions against him [Doc. Nos. 7, 8, & 11], and certify

for the Court that he now understands the obligation of counsel to appear before the Court

in compliance with its orders regardless of whether parties have reached settlement and

dismissal is forthcoming. 

2. Upon filing of the afore-mentioned Declaration, the Court shall withdraw the monetary

sanction previously assessed against Mr. Roddy.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 17, 2007

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02144-LAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 05/17/07 Page 4 of 4