Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01071/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01071-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Dr. Guenter Stetter, a citizen of the foreign 

state of Germany, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

John R. Bickley, IV, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV09-1071-PHX-DGC

ORDER OF DEFAULT AGAINST 

DEFENDANT BICKLEY 

 For reasons stated below, the Court will enter default against Defendant John R. 

Bickley, IV for his repeated failures to cooperate in the prosecution of this litigation. The 

Court will afford Plaintiff an opportunity to submit a proposed form of judgment and 

evidence in support of the judgment. 

 On May 16, 2011, the Court entered an order setting a final pretrial conference on 

July 29, 2011. Doc. 199. This was the second time the Court had scheduled such a 

conference in this case. Doc. 146. The previous final pretrial conference was postponed 

in light of Defendant Bickley’s bankruptcy and Defendant Gould’s health issues. See 

Docs. 153, 154. 

 The May 16 order required the parties jointly to prepare and file a proposed final 

pretrial order, as well as other items related to the completion of trial in this case. The 

order stated that “[f]ull and complete compliance with this Order shall be required by the 

Case 2:09-cv-01071-DGC Document 205 Filed 08/01/11 Page 1 of 5
‐ 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 

court.” Doc. 199, ¶ 13. Defendant Bickley refused to follow the order. Despite 

communications from Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Bickley refused to cooperate in the 

preparation of a proposed final pretrial order. See Doc. 200. 

 On July 21, 2011, the Court entered an order allowing Defendant Burton Gould to 

participate in the final pretrial conference by telephone due to his continuing medical 

issues. Doc. 202. The order specifically stated, however, that “all remaining Defendants 

in this matter shall appear in person at the hearing.” Id. This was not the first time 

Defendant Bickley had been cautioned that strict compliance with the orders related to 

the final pretrial conference would be required. On May 2, 2011, the Court entered an 

order resolving various issues and stating that a final pretrial conference would be 

scheduled by separate order and that “[t]he parties shall be required to comply strictly

with every requirement of the order.” Doc. 198 at 2 (emphasis in original). 

 Despite these repeated warnings that full compliance with the Court’s final pretrial 

conference order would be required, Defendant Bickley declined to participate or 

cooperate in any effort to prepare for the final pretrial conference. Defendant Bickley 

called the Court’s chambers on the afternoon of July 29, 2011, to state that he would not 

appear at the final pretrial conference that day. The Court’s Judicial Assistant warned 

him that his deliberate failure to appear could result in default being entered against him. 

Defendant Bickley nonetheless failed to appear at the final pretrial conference. He did, 

however, call the Court’s chambers later that evening to confirm that the final pretrial 

conference had in fact occurred. 

 During the final pretrial conference, Plaintiff’s counsel explained that he had 

several conversations with Defendant Bickley concerning his intention not to appear or 

participate in the final pretrial conference. Plaintiff’s counsel also warned Defendant 

Bickley that such conduct could result in a default against him, but these warnings, like 

the Court’s, went unheeded. 

 Recently, orders mailed by the Court to Defendant Bickley have been returned 

unopened. See Doc. 203. As a result, the Court’s Judicial Assistant asked Defendant 

Case 2:09-cv-01071-DGC Document 205 Filed 08/01/11 Page 2 of 5
‐ 3 ‐ 

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 

Bickley during the July 29, 2011 phone call to provide an updated mailing address. 

Defendant Bickley refused to do so. 

 These are not the first problems that have arisen with respect to Defendant 

Bickley’s participation in this litigation. Early in the case, the Court had to warn 

Defendant Bickley repeatedly about possible contempt sanctions before he would 

produce information specifically called for in the Court’s orders. Later, Defendant 

Bickley declared bankruptcy after the first final pretrial conference was scheduled. His 

bankruptcy action apparently was dismissed on motion of the bankruptcy trustee after 

Bickley failed to appear and be examined at the meeting of creditors. Doc. 173. 

 To summarize, Defendant Bickley was uncooperative with the Court from the 

start, requiring the Court to make contempt threats before he would produce required 

documents. Defendant Bickley did not participate actively in the discovery process in 

this case, and declared bankruptcy after the Court scheduled the first final pretrial 

conference. The bankruptcy action was dismissed when Defendant Bickley failed to 

comply with court orders. When this Court set the second final pretrial conference, it 

specifically required Bickley to cooperate in preparation of a proposed final pretrial order 

and to submit other documents such as proposed jury instructions and voir dire. The 

Court warned Bickley that strict compliance would be required. Bickley failed to 

cooperate despite attempts by Plaintiff’s counsel to obtain his cooperation. Bickley also 

failed to appear at the final pretrial conference despite being well aware of it, as 

evidenced by his calls to the Court’s chambers that day. Bickley even refused to provide 

the Court’s judicial assistant with an updated mailing address. 

 Sanctions of dismissal and default for willful and inexcusable failure to prosecute 

litigation “are proper exercises of discretion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

41(b), 16(f), and the inherent power of the court.” Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 

1385 (9th Cir. 1996). The Ninth Circuit has identified several factors to be considered 

before terminating sanctions may be entered: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 

resolution of the litigation, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of 

Case 2:09-cv-01071-DGC Document 205 Filed 08/01/11 Page 3 of 5
‐ 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 

prejudice to the opposing party, (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 

their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int.’l 

Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th Cir. 2002). 

 In this case, the first two factors favor entry of default against Defendant Bickley. 

His refusal to participate in preparing for trial has made expeditious resolution of this 

case impossible, and the Court’s need to manage its docket dictates that the case proceed 

notwithstanding his obstructionist tactics. The third factor also favors default. Bickley’s 

refusal to assist in preparing for trial presents a risk of prejudice to Plaintiff, who has a 

clear interest in concluding this case on the merits. The fourth factor – the public policy 

favoring disposition of cases on the merits – weighs against the entry of default, but 

cannot be satisfied when Defendant Bickley refuses to prepare this case for trial. The 

Court has considered the fifth factor – less drastic sanctions – but none is apparent. 

Defendant Bickley has refused to comply with the Court’s orders, refused to respond to 

the Court’s staff’s urging that he participate in hearings, refused to appear at a final 

pretrial conference despite the Court and Plaintiff’s counsel’s warning that default could 

result, and refused to provide a mailing address where the Court can contact him. The 

Court concludes that no alternative measures would produce the compliance needed to 

conclude this case on the merits and, therefore, that entry of default against Defendant 

Bickley is the least drastic sanction that will accomplish the goals of Rules 1, 16, and 37 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. As a sanction for his failure to assist in preparing this case for trial, default 

is entered against Defendant Bickley. 

Case 2:09-cv-01071-DGC Document 205 Filed 08/01/11 Page 4 of 5
‐ 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. Plaintiff may, within 20 days of the date of this order, provide the Court 

with a proposed form of judgment and any evidence in support of the proposed judgment. 

 Dated this 1st day of August, 2011. 

Case 2:09-cv-01071-DGC Document 205 Filed 08/01/11 Page 5 of 5