Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01193/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01193-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Default

---

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

Arizona Bank & Trust, an Arizona

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Mark A. Ramundo; Jane Doe Ramundo,

husband and wife, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1193-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Plaintiff Arizona Bank & Trust’s Motion Pursuant to

Rule 16(f) (Doc. # 9). For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.

BACKGROUND

In October 2005, Defendant Mark A. Ramundo purchased a parcel of unimproved

land, and executed a promissory note and a deed of trust in favor of Plaintiff. Plaintiff

alleges that Ramundo defaulted under the promissory note and, as a result, Plaintiff

foreclosed its security interest in Ramundo’s property. In May 2008, Plaintiff filed the

instant action in the Maricopa County Superior Court, seeking from Ramundo the difference

between the fair market value of the property and the deficiency balance under the

promissory note. In June 2008, Ramundo, self-represented, removed Plaintiff’s action to this

Court.

Case 2:08-cv-01193-JAT Document 28 Filed 06/24/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

In July 2008, Ramundo filed a third-party complaint against certain named third-party

defendants. In November 2008, the Court ordered Ramundo to appear and show cause why

his third-party complaint should not be dismissed for his failure to properly serve the named

defendants pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4. Plaintiff appeared at the show

cause hearing, but Ramundo failed to appear. As a consequence, the Court dismissed

Ramundo’s third-party complaint under Rule 4(m). At the show cause hearing, Plaintiff

made an oral motion pursuant to Rule 16(f) to strike Ramundo’s Answer and enter judgment

against Ramundo for his failure to appear at the show cause hearing. The Court denied

Plaintiff’s oral motion, but directed Plaintiff to file its motion in writing, at which time the

Court would consider the motion.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff urges this Court to enter judgment by default against Ramundo or, in the

alternative, Plaintiff request the Court to strike Ramundo’s answer. As Plaintiff outlines, this

Court has authority pursuant to Rule 16(f) and Rule 37(b) to enter sanctions against

Ramundo for his failure to attend the show cause hearing. However, the entry of sanctions

in such instances falls within the sound discretion of this Court, and upon consideration of

Plaintiff’s Motion and Ramundo’s declaration and response, the Court will not award

Plaintiff’s requested sanctions. See Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir.

1990) (“An award of sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f) is within the discretion of the district

court.”).

Ramundo avers that his failure to appear at the show cause hearing was inadvertent,

believing that his dismissal of the third-party defendants obviated his need to appear at the

show cause hearing. In so doing, Ramundo appears to have relied upon the advice of an

attorney representing him in another related case. In order to prevent future confusions,

Ramundo has hired counsel to represent him in this action. The Court is not faced with the

situation where one party has wilfully disobeyed this Court or repeatedly ignored the Court’s

directives.

Case 2:08-cv-01193-JAT Document 28 Filed 06/24/09 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Moreover, Plaintiff has not been prejudiced by Ramundo’s failure to appear at the

show cause hearing. The purpose of the hearing was for Ramundo to show cause why he had

failed to properly serve the third-party defendants. When Ramundo failed to appear, the

Court dismissed his third-party complaint. The Court’s actions had no direct effect on

Plaintiff, nor was Plaintiff prejudiced by Ramundo’s failure to appear.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Arizona Bank & Trust’s Motion Pursuant to Rule

16(f) (Doc. # 9) is denied.

DATED this 24th day of June, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01193-JAT Document 28 Filed 06/24/09 Page 3 of 3