Opinion ID: 180499
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defaults

Text: A. Defaults Between March 2008 and November 3, 2008 At the November 3, 2008 session of the Committee’s hearing, Gell expressed her belief that no defaults had occurred in her cases after she received the Committee’s March 2008 order putting her on notice of the present proceeding. Nov. 3, 2008 Transcript 3 The current attorney admission rule states that an attorney appearing in this Court “on behalf of a party or an amicus curiae in any capacity must be admitted to practice before this court, ... have pending an application for admission, [or be admitted pro hac vice,] and must file a Notice of Appearance in accordance with LR 12.3.” Second Cir. Local Rule 46.1(a); see Local Rule 12.3(a) (“Within 14 days after receiving a docketing notice from the circuit clerk assigning a docket number ..., all parties must file the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form. Counsel of record listed on the form must be admitted in this court, or have pending an application for admission under LR 46.1(a) or (d).”); Local Rule 12.3(b)(“An attorney, other than the initial counsel of record, who appears in a case in any capacity on behalf of a party or an amicus curiae must file the Notice of Appearance Form for Substitute, Additional, or Amicus Counsel at the time the attorney enters the case.”). An attorney “appears” in this Court when, for example, he or she files, or permits the filing of, a petition, motion, brief, or other request for relief bearing the attorney’s signature. See Fed. R. App. P. 32(d) (“Every brief, motion, or other paper filed with the court must be signed by the party filing the paper or, if the party is represented, by one of the party’s attorneys.”); see, e.g., Chums, Ltd. v. Always in Mind, Inc., 110 F.3d 67, 1997 WL 133267 at  (9th Cir. 1997) (unpublished decision) (“Generally, an attorney may appear on behalf of a party by either filing a formal notice of appearance or filing pleadings on behalf of that party.”); In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 364 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009)(stating that local rule permits attorney to enter appearance by signing any pleading or other document described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a) or by filing notice of appearance); In re Stauffer, 378 B.R. 333, 336 n.2 (Bankr. D. Utah 2006)(describing similar local rule). 9 at 123. She also stated that, after the receipt of that order, all of her briefs were timely filed, with the exception of one brief that was filed approximately ten days late. Id.; accord Dec. 11, 2008 Transcript at 21 (Gell testimony that she is “taking far fewer Second Circuit cases now,” “completely supervising them and doing the work,” “watching everything that happens in those cases,” and “complying with every court order”). While review of the Court’s docket indicates that none of Gell’s cases have been dismissed on default after March 2008, it also reveals that defaults did, in fact, occur after that date. Specifically, contrary to her November 3, 2008 testimony, Gell defaulted between March 2008 and the date of that testimony, or continued a prior default into that period, in the following five cases. 1. In Singh v. Keisler, 07-4975-ag, Gell’s brief was due by April 2, 2008. See Singh, 07-4975-ag, order filed Mar. 3, 2008. On April 23, 2008, the Clerk’s Office issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed based on Gell’s failure to file a brief, with a response required by May 7, 2008. See id., order filed Apr. 23, 2008. On April 24, 2008, the brief was served and filed. See id., brief filed Apr. 24, 2008 (cert. of service, noting Apr. 24, 2008 mailing). 2. In Benabdi v. Mukasey, 07-5138-ag, Gell’s brief was due by February 19, 2008. See Benabdi, 07-5138-ag, order filed Jan. 14, 2008. On March 26, 2008, the Clerk’s Office issued an order to 10 show cause why the case should not be dismissed based on Gell’s failure to file her brief, with a response required by April 14, 2008. See id., order filed Mar. 26, 2008. Gell did not submit the brief until April 22, 2008, see id., brief filed Apr. 22, 2008 (cert. of service, noting Apr. 21, 2008 service on Court); however, the submission was deemed defective because Gell’s motion to file late was not properly supported, see id., second “notice of defective filing” filed Apr. 23, 2008. The corrected motion was filed on May 2, 2008, and the motion to file the late brief was granted. See id., motion filed May 2, 2008, order filed May 9, 2008. 3. In Mirza v. Mukasey, 07-5298-ag, Gell’s brief was due by February 25, 2008. See Mirza, 07-5298-ag, order filed Jan. 24, 2008. On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered Gell to show cause why the case should not be dismissed based on her failure to file a brief. See id., order filed Mar. 24, 2008. On that same day, Gell requested that she given until April 1, 2008 to file the brief; she was given until April 8, 2008. See id., motion and response filed Mar. 26, 2008, order filed Apr. 1, 2008. However, Gell submitted her brief and joint appendix one day late, on April 9, 2008, see id., entry for Apr. 9, 2008, brief filed May 2, 2008 (cert. of service, noting Apr. 9, 2008 service on Court), and the docket indicates that the submission was defective because no special appendix had been received, id., case manager notations at Apr. 10 11 and 17, 2008. The special appendix was not received until May 2, 2008, at which time the brief and appendices were filed. See id., brief and appendices filed May 2, 2008. 4. In Azam v. Mukasey, 08-0344-ag, Gell’s brief was due by April 21, 2008. See Azam, 08-0344-ag, order filed Mar. 20, 2008. One day after that deadline, Gell requested an extension of time. See id., motion filed Apr. 22, 2008 (cert. of service, noting Apr. 22, 2008 service on Court). The request was granted and her brief was then due by May 21, 2008. See id., order filed Apr. 22, 2008. Although the brief was received by the Clerk’s Office on May 21, 2008, Gell was informed that a special appendix was required. See id., entries for May 21 and 22, 2008. The special appendix was filed on May 22, 2008, at which time the brief and appendices were filed. See id., entries for May 22, 2008. 5. In Kaur v. Mukasey, 08-3079-ag, Gell was ordered to show cause why the case should not be dismissed based on Gell’s failure to timely file Form C/A, with a response required by August 11, 2008. See Kaur, 08-3079-ag, order filed July 25, 2008. On August 11, 2008, Gell moved to withdraw the petition for review, which was granted. See id., motion filed Aug. 11, 2008, order filed Aug. 12, 2008. B. Defaults Occurring After November 3, 2008 Defaults also occurred after the November 3, 2008 session of the Committee’s hearing in the following five cases. 12 1. In Tazu v. Holder, 09-2520-ag, after receiving two extensions, Gell’s brief was due by December 23, 2009. See Tazu, 09-2520-ag, order filed Dec 17, 2009. However, Gell’s brief was not submitted to the Court until January 6, 2010. See id., entry for Jan. 6, 2010, brief filed Jan. 13, 2010 (cert. of service, noting Jan. 6, 2010 service on Court). 2. In Asif v. Holder, 08-4870-ag, after receiving two extensions, Gell’s brief was due by April 25, 2009. See Asif, 084870-ag, order filed Apr. 1, 2009. However, she failed to comply and, on May 7, 2009, she was ordered to show cause why the case should not be dismissed based on her default, with a response required by May 21, 2009. See id., order filed May 7, 2009. On May 22, 2009, her brief was filed. See id., brief filed May 22, 2009. Although the certificate of service for the brief indicates that the Court was personally served on May 21, 2009, see id., at cert. of service, the docket shows receipt on May 22, 2009. 3. In Amekoudji v. Holder, 08-5078-ag, Gell was ordered to show cause why the case should not be dismissed based on her failure to timely file Form C/A, with a response required by December 5, 2008. See Amekoudji, 08-5078-ag, order filed Nov. 13, 2008. Gell timely responded and filed the form, and her brief was then due by March 23, 2009. See id., entries for Dec. 5, 2008. On April 7, 2009, Gell was ordered to show cause why the case should not be dismissed based on her failure to file her brief, with a 13 response required by April 21, 2009. See id., order filed Apr. 7, 2009. She responded on April 21, 2009, but was notified that she had failed to file a necessary form. See id., entry for Apr. 27, 2009. On May 1, 2009, the Court again requested the missing form. See id., entry for May 1, 2009. On May 5, 2009, Gell moved to have the Court accept her late-filed brief and appendix. See id., entries for May 5 and 7, 2009. The Court granted her motion and the brief and appendices were filed as of May 12, 2009. See id., entries for May 12, 2009. Three weeks later, however, Gell moved to file an amended brief, due to “numerous typographical errors, page cites errors, case page reference cites and other mistakes in the [original] brief that resulted from an earlier version ... being ... used as the final version.” Id., motion filed June 3, 2009. The Court granted the motion and the amended brief was filed. See id., order and amended brief filed on June 5, 2009. 4. In Azad v. Holder, 09-2066-ag, Gell’s brief was due by September 7, 2009. See Azad, 09-2066-ag, order filed July 7, 2009. It was not submitted until September 8, 2009. See id., entries for Sept. 8, 2009, brief filed Sept. 8, 2009 (cert. of service, noting Sept. 8, 2008 service). 5. In Sarker v. Mukasey, 08-5190-ag, Gell was required to file form C/A by November 3, 2008, but did not do so until November 6, 2008. See Sarker, 08-5190-ag, entries for Oct. 27 and Nov. 6, 2008. After receiving an extension of time, Gell’s brief was then 14 due by March 2, 2009. See id., order filed Feb. 4, 2009. However, the brief was not submitted until March 5, 2009. See entries for Mar. 5, 2009, brief filed Mar. 5, 2009 (cert. of service, noting Mar. 4, 2009 service on Court). Gell’s November 3 and December 11, 2008 testimony before the Committee suggests a possible misunderstanding of what constitutes a default and, therefore, a possible misunderstanding of her obligations. The defaults for which Gell was responsible are clearly reflected in this Court’s records. A “default” occurs when an attorney or litigant fails to file a required document by the deadline specified in an order or rule of this Court. An attorney who cannot comply with such deadlines must seek – prior to the deadline – an extension of time, a stay of proceedings, withdrawal as counsel, withdrawal of the case, or guidance from the Court. Requesting such relief after the deadline has passed is justified only under unusual circumstances. The fact that, in a particular case, dismissal did not result from a default, or the Court permitted the filing of a document after the deadline, does not mean that a default did not occur. While none of Gell’s cases have been dismissed on default since March 2008, it is our hope that she will make further improvements by reducing or eliminating the number of defaults.4 4 Gell also has continued to default in the Third Circuit. From October 2008 through September 2010, the Third Circuit has dismissed four petitions for review due to Gell’s failure to file 15