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 

Maria C Benitez, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Gene Gordon Roelfsema, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-17-04209-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is Plaintiff Maria Benitez’s Motion to Remand (Doc 7.), to which 

Defendant Gene Gordan Roelfsema filed a Response (Doc. 9, Resp.), and to which 

Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. 10, Reply). On March 1, 2018, the Court issued an Order 

denying the Motion to Remand with leave to refile following the exchange of initial 

discovery disclosures under the Court’s Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project 

(“MIDP”). (Doc. 16, Mar. 1, 2018 Order at 6.) In accordance with that Order, the parties 

filed supplemental briefing on the Motion to Remand (Doc. 19, Pl’s Br.; Doc. 20, Def’s 

Br.) Upon review of that supplemental briefing, however, the Court concluded that 

Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Order to exchange discovery disclosures 

pursuant to the MIDP. (Doc. 21, June 8, 2018 Order.) In particular, Plaintiff failed to 

disclose a computation of and evidence pertaining to her prayer for lost wages despite 

evidence in the record that Plaintiff did not in fact work for a period of time following her 

accident. As a result, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why Plaintiff should not 

be sanctioned for her failure to comply with the Court’s March 1, 2018 Order and the 
- 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 

MIDP. (June 8, 2018 Order.) Plaintiff has now filed a Response to that Order (Doc. 24, 

Pl’s OSC Br.), and Defendants filed a Response (Doc. 27, Defs’ OSC Br.) 

 Plaintiff’s Response to the Order to Show Cause fails to justify her failure. In 

support of the Response, Plaintiff’s counsel attaches an affidavit from his litigation 

paralegal stating that she repeatedly attempted to obtain information from Plaintiff to 

verify Plaintiff’s lost wages, but that Plaintiff failed to comply with these requests. (Doc. 

24-1, Hahn Decl. ¶ 3–8.) Although this explanation may excuse the conduct of Plaintiff’s 

attorney, it is Plaintiff’s duty to disclose information relating to the damages she sought 

in her Complaint. 

 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2), the Court may sanction a party 

who “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery.” The Court’s March 1, 2018 

Order was such an order requiring that all parties in this matter provide discovery 

pursuant to the MIDP. Sanctions for a party’s noncompliance may include “directing that 

the matters embraced in the order . . . be taken as established for purposes of the action” 

and “striking pleadings in whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i), (iii). Because Plaintiff 

failed to obey this Court’s Order to turn over a computation of all of the damages that she 

seeks to recover in her Complaint, pursuant to the MIDP, the Court will issue two such 

sanctions. First, the Court will strike Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, without leave to 

refile, because Plaintiff’s failure to make adequate disclosures contravenes the very 

purpose of the Court’s earlier Order. As the Court articulated in its earlier ruling, 

Defendant’s Notice of Removal contains plausible allegations that the amount in 

controversy exceeds the Court’s jurisdictional requirements. (Mar. 1, 2018 Order at 3–4.) 

Thus, the Court may assume jurisdiction over the matter in the absence of any challenge 

by Plaintiff. Second, even if Plaintiff later produces evidence demonstrating that she 

suffered lost wages as a result of her injuries, she shall be estopped from presenting such 

evidence or recovering any such damages. 

. . . . 

. . . . 
- 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 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED striking Defendant’s Motion to Remand, without 

leave to refile. 

 Dated this 10th day of August, 2018. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge