Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00216/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00216-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
First United Methodist Church
Defendant
Darlene Maye
Defendant
Monica Perryman
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

MONICA PERRYMAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

) 2:06cv216-MHT

FIRST UNITED METHODIST ) (WO)

CHURCH and DARLENE MAYE, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND SANCTIONS ORDER

Plaintiff Monica Perryman sued defendants First

United Methodist Church and Darlene Maye for race and

gender discrimination in employment. Perryman based

her lawsuit on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985(3); the

Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206; and Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 1981a, 2000e through 2000e-17; she invoked the

jurisdiction of the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/12/07 Page 1 of 18
2

(§§ 1981, 1983 and 1985(3) claims), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f) (Title VII claims), and 29 U.S.C. § 217 (Equal Pay

Act claim). In an opinion and judgment entered on

March 5, 2007, the court entered summary judgment in

favor of the defendants First United and Maye and

against Perryman. Perryman v. First United Methodist

Church, 2007 WL 703604 (M.D. Ala. 2007). 

The one remaining issue is whether Perryman’s

attorney, Norman Hurst, Jr., should be sanctioned for

failing to comply with a court order that required him

to (1) cooperate with defense counsel in drafting a

pretrial order and (2) attend a pretrial hearing. The

sanctions issue is before the court by way of a motion

to dismiss filed by the church and Maye on January 29,

2007, and a contempt show-cause order entered by the

court, sua sponte, on January 30. As explained below,

the court concludes that Hurst should be sanctioned

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.16(f). 

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 18
3

I. BACKGROUND

The principal events leading up to the sanctions

issue are, chronologically, as follows:

March 6, 2006: Perryman, without an attorney, filed

this lawsuit.

June 7: Hurst entered an appearance on behalf of

Perryman.

June 19: The court entered a scheduling order

setting this case for pretrial on January 29, 2007, and

for trial during the term of court beginning on

February 26, 2007. No specific times for the pretrial

and trial were given in the order. 

November 16: The court entered an order setting

the pretrial for 10:30 a.m. on January 29, 2007, in

chambers, and stating that (1) “ALL ATTORNEYS who are

to try this case must be present,” (2) “Appropriate

penalties will be imposed for failure to comply with

these requirements,” and (3) “The parties are DIRECTED

to prepare JOINTLY a proposed pretrial order in

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/12/07 Page 3 of 18
1. Hurst does not have a secretary or other legal

assistant, and he has neither email nor facsimile

capability.

4

accordance with the attached outline” and “Plaintiff is

DIRECTED to mail the original of the proposed pretrial

order to this court to be received no later than two

business days prior to the pretrial hearing.”

January 22, 2007, Monday: Because, pursuant to the

November 16 pretrial-notice order, Hurst was

responsible for submitting a jointly prepared proposed

pretrial order to the court, defense counsel called

Hurst and left a voice message that they would like to

talk to him about the Perryman case. Hurst did not 1

return the call.

January 23, Tuesday: Defense counsel called Hurst

again and left a voice message that they would like to

talk to him about the Perryman case. Hurst did not

return the call.

January 24, 2007, Wednesday: Defense counsel mailed

Hurst a letter, with a copy of a proposed pretrial

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/12/07 Page 4 of 18
5

order attached and reminding him that he was

responsible for submitting the proposed order to the

court. As required by the November 16 pretrial-notice

order, the proposed order contained defense counsel’s

contentions, and left a blank space for Perryman’s

contentions; it also opened with the preamble that “A

pretrial hearing was held in this case on January 29,

2007 ....”

January 25, Thursday: On this day, pursuant to the

November 16 pretrial-notice order, Hurst was to have

submitted a jointly prepared proposed pretrial order.

None was received. 

Hurst received defense counsel’s January 24 letter

with the proposed pretrial order (containing defense

counsel’s contentions) attached. Hurst did not act on

the letter.

January 26, Friday: Court personnel called counsel

for the parties to inquire why Hurst had not submitted

a jointly prepared proposed pretrial order. Defense

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/12/07 Page 5 of 18
6

counsel emailed to the court a proposed order that

included all that was required of them, including their

contentions. They also advised that, because Hurst had

failed to cooperate in preparation of the order, the

part of the proposed order that required Perryman’s

contribution, including her contentions, was left

blank.

A legal assistant for defense counsel finally

reached Hurst by phone. Hurst said that he would be

available at 4:00 p.m. that day, and asked that one of

the defense counsel call him then. Because that

defense counsel had another legal engagement at 4:00

p.m., he did not call Hurst.

January 29, Monday: The court held a pretrial in

this case. Defense counsel attended; Hurst neither

attended, nor called chambers to ask to be excused.

During the pretrial, defense counsel orally moved to

dismiss this case, and, later, after the pretrial,

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/12/07 Page 6 of 18
7

filed a written motion to dismiss. The written motion

also included a request for sanctions against Hurst.

January 29: The court entered an order directing

Hurst to show cause, by February 5, 2007, why defense

counsel’s written dismissal motion should not be

granted.

January 30: The court, sua sponte, after noting

that “Counsel for defendants ... orally reported to the

court that ... Hurst ... failed to participate in the

drafting of a proposed pretrial order” and that “Hurst

... failed to appear for the pretrial conference

scheduled for January 29, 2007,” entered an order

directing that Hurst “personally appear on February 7,

2007, at 10:00 a.m. at the Frank M. Johnson, Jr. United

States Courthouse Complex, Courtroom 2FMJ, One Church

Street, Montgomery, Alabama 36104, and show cause why

he should not be held in contempt of court and

sanctioned, pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, for the ... alleged failures.”

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/12/07 Page 7 of 18
8

February 7: A hearing was held. Hurst and

defense counsel testified.

II. DISCUSSION

Because summary judgment has been entered in favor

of First United and Maye, their January 29 oral motion

to dismiss can be denied as moot in its entirety, and

their January 29 written motion to dismiss can be

denied as moot to the extent dismissal is sought.

Therefore, the only issue for the court is whether

Hurst, the attorney for Perryman, should be held in

contempt and sanctioned pursuant to the church and

Maye’s January 29 dismissal motion and the court’s

January 30 contempt show-cause order.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f), if a

party’s attorney, without reasonable excuse, fails to

comply with a scheduling order or fails to appear for a

pretrial conference, the court may impose sanctions

against that attorney, and the sanctions my include the

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/12/07 Page 8 of 18
2. Rule 16 provides:

“Sanctions. If a party or party's

attorney fails to obey a scheduling or

pretrial order, or if no appearance is

made on behalf of a party at a

scheduling or pretrial conference, or if

a party or party's attorney is

substantially unprepared to participate

in the conference, or if a party or

party's attorney fails to participate in

good faith, the judge, upon motion or

the judge's own initiative, may make

such orders with regard thereto as are

just, and among others any of the orders

provided in Rule 37(b)(2)(B), (C), (D).

In lieu of or in addition to any other

sanction, the judge shall require the

party or the attorney representing the

party or both to pay the reasonable

expenses incurred because of any

noncompliance with this rule, including

attorney's fees, unless the judge finds

that the noncompliance was substantially

justified or that other circumstances

make an award of expenses unjust.”

Fed.R.Civ.P.16(f).

9

opposing party’s reasonable attorney’s fees and

expenses incurred because of non-compliance with Rule

16. 

2

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/12/07 Page 9 of 18
3. The November 16 pretrial-notice order also

required that Hurst, as the plaintiff’s attorney, submit

the proposed pretrial order to the court two business day

in advance of the pretrial. While Hurst failed to do

this too, the court need not rely on this failure as a

basis for sanctions.

10

1.

The first issue for the court is whether Hurst

should be sanctioned because he failed to comply with a

scheduling order and failed to a appear for a pretrial.

The court is convinced, not only by a preponderance of

the evidence, but beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is

guilty of both failures. The November 16 pretrialnotice order required that Hurst (1) cooperate in the

preparation of the a proposed pretrial order and (2)

attend a pretrial on January 29. Hurst did neither.

3

The evidence at the February 7 contempt hearing showed

that defense counsel repeatedly tried to reach Hurst to

solicit his help in preparing the proposed order and

even mailed him a copy of a proposed pretrial order

(containing defense counsel’s contentions), but that

Hurst did nothing. And, of course, the evidence is

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/12/07 Page 10 of 18
4. It is more than suspicious that, when Hurst was

confronted with the fact that the time of the pretrial

was set forth in the November 16 pretrial-notice order,

he said he did not receive it, and, when he confronted

with the fact the time of the pretrial was also set forth

in the defense counsel’s January 29 motion to dismiss, he

responded that he did not receive that document either.

11

undisputed that Hurst failed to appear for the January

29 pretrial. 

Hurst testified at the February 7 contempt hearing

that he did not comply with the court’s November 16

pretrial-notice order (setting forth the exact time of

the pretrial and the requirement that the parties

jointly prepare a proposed pretrial order) because he

did not received the order. Hurst suggests that,

because he sometimes received the mail of others at his

business street, the postal service may have misdelivered the order to someone else on his business

street. 

The court does not believe Hurst for several

reasons. First, Hurst received other orders in this

case. Second, it is undisputed that the June 19 4

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/12/07 Page 11 of 18
12

scheduling order gave Hurst notice that a pretrial

would be held on January 29 (although no time was given

then) and the evidence at the February 7 contempt

hearing reflected that defense counsel repeatedly left

messages for Hurst to contact them so that they could

jointly prepare the proposed pretrial order, and that

they even mailed to him (and he received before the

pretrial date) a copy of a proposed pretrial order that

opened with the preamble that “A pretrial hearing was

held in this case on January 29, 2007 ....”. Under

these circumstances, a reasonable person who did not

know the exact time of the pretrial on January 29

(because that person had not received the November 16

pretrial-notice order) would have known that a pretrial

was being held on January 29 and thus would have

inquired of the court or opposing counsel whether a

specific time had been set. 

The only reason Hurst did not make such an inquiry

is because he had either ‘actual knowledge’ of the date

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/12/07 Page 12 of 18
5. While the court does not rely on this additional

evidence, it is worth observing that (1) Hurst never

submitted Perryman’s contentions for inclusion in a

proposed pretrial order, even after the contempt showcause hearing on February 7; (2) he failed to meet the

deadline for responding to the First United and Maye’s

summary-judgment motion, and, when he did respond, it was

almost a month and a half after the deadline; and (3) on

June 19, 2006, he represented to the court that he would

file an amended a complaint within two weeks but did not

do so for almost a month later; and (4) defense counsel

note in their written dismissal motion that Hurst also

failed to exchange any witness and exhibit lists by the

court-ordered deadline. That Hurst has been inattentive

to his obligations in this case is an understatement.

It can also be reasonably argued that Hurst did not

(continued...)

13

and time of the pretrial (in that he received and read

the November 16 pretrial-notice order and calendared

its requirements) and then wilfully ignored his legal

obligations; or he had ‘constructive knowledge’ (in

that he received the November 16 order but negligently

failed to read it or, if he read it, negligently failed

to calendar the deadlines and requirements set forth in

the order) and further negligently ignored the

reminders defense counsel gave him, by phone and mail,

of the deadlines and requirements.

5

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/12/07 Page 13 of 18
5. (...continued)

take the February 7 contempt hearing seriously. Prior to

the hearing, he call the court’s chambers and left a

message, unwittingly, perhaps, in the words of Melville’s

Bartleby the Scrivener, that he would “prefer not” to

attend the contempt hearing. The court sent a message

back that he had no preference in the matter and must

attend the hearing if he did not want to be held in

contempt of court. Hurst was still late for the hearing.

14

The court cannot look into Hurst’s mind to

determine whether he had actual knowledge and then

acted with wilful or gross indifference. The court,

instead, gives him the benefit of the doubt and finds

(not only by a preponderance of the evidence, but

beyond a reasonable doubt) that he had constructive

knowledge of the date and time of the January 29

pretrial, in that he received and read the November 16

pretrial-notice order, but then negligently failed to

calendar the date and time of the pretrial as well as

his obligations to prepare a proposed pretrial order;

the court further finds that he negligently ignored the

reminders defense counsel gave him, by phone and mail,

of the date and time and his obligations.

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/12/07 Page 14 of 18
6. At one point, Hurst became ensnared in his

repeated excuse that he did not meet a deadline because

he did not receive the order setting the deadline. He

also stated that he did not receive the court’s order

denying his request to extend the time to respond the

defense counsel’s summary-judgment motion. The court,

finding this contention less than credible because his

brief was filed not any where near the time requested in

the extension but rather much later and somewhat ‘out of

the blue,’ inquired:

“THE COURT: But even if you didn’t get

my order, why did your brief come in?

I believe it was weeks late, not even

days late.

“MR. HURST: Your Honor, like I said,

it’s just me.”

In other words, Hurst had nothing to say other than “it’s

just me” to explain away the incredulity in his

contention.

15

The court, therefore, finds that Hurst, without

reasonable excuse, failed to comply with the November

16 pretrial-notice order (in that he failed to

cooperate in the preparation of the a proposed pretrial

order and he failed to attend a pretrial on January 29)

and that, as a result, he should be sanctioned.6

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/12/07 Page 15 of 18
16

2.

The next issue for the court is what sanctions to

impose. The court will order sanctions sufficient to

compensate defense counsel for expenses incurred as a

result of Hurst’s non-compliance with Rule 16. These

expenses include the First United and Maye’s expenses

incurred in attempting to secure Hurst’s cooperation in

the preparation of a pretrial order, their expenses in

attending the pretrial, and their expenses relating to

the instant sanctions issue. These expenses are to be

paid by Hurst personally, and not by his client,

Perryman.

***

Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE

of the court as follows:

(1) Defendants First United Methodist Church and

Darlene Maye’s oral motion to dismiss is denied as

moot.

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/12/07 Page 16 of 18
17

(2) Defendants First United Methodist Church and

Maye’s written motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 48) is

denied to extent dismissal is sought.

(3) It is DECLARED, sua sponte, that Norman Hurst,

Jr, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with

the November 16, 2007, pretrial-notice order (in that

he failed to cooperate in the preparation of the a

proposed pretrial order and he failed to attend a

pretrial on January 29, 2007), and that, as a result,

sanctions should be imposed against him pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P.16(f).

(4) Defendants First United Methodist Church and

Maye’s written motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 48) is

granted to the extent that, pursuant to findings in

paragraph (3), sanctions are imposed against Hurst

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.16(f).

(5) Hurst shall pay defendants First United

Methodist Church and Maye’s reasonable fees and

expenses incurred in attempting to secure Hurst’s

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/12/07 Page 17 of 18
cooperation in the preparation of a pretrial order,

their expense in their attorneys’ attendance at the

pretrial, and their expenses relating to the instant

sanctions issue. The fees and expenses should come out

of Hurst’s pocket, and shall not be paid by plaintiff

Monica Perryman. 

(6) By March 19, 2007, defendants First United

Methodist Church and Maye shall file an affidavit

itemizing their reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses

incurred in attempting to secure Hurst’s cooperation in

the preparation of a pretrial order, their expenses in

their attorneys’ attendance at the pretrial, and their

expenses relating to the instant sanctions issue.

(7) By April 2, 2007, Norman Hurst, Jr., shall file

a response to defendants First United Methodist Church

and Maye’s submission.

DONE, this the 12th day of March, 2007.

____/_s_/_ _M_y_r_o_n_ _H_._ _T_h_o_m_p_s_o_n_____

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 03/12/07 Page 18 of 18