Williamson v. Mercado ( 2021 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Theodore Williamson, No. CV-21-01159-PHX-MTL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Celina Bustos Mercado, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 On July 7, 2021, this Court held a status conference to discuss Plaintiff Theodore 16 Williamson’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (the “Motion”) (Doc. 17 2). A few minutes before that status conference started, defense counsel alerted this Court 18 that there was a recent Arizona Court of Appeals decision dealing with almost identical 19 facts, legal issues, and parties. See Williamson v. Williamson, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0325 FC, 20 2020 WL 3250849 (Ariz. App. June 16, 2020). When asked about this authority, 21 Plaintiff’s counsel, Barbara Cowan, noted that she was aware of this decision but did not 22 think it was relevant to include in the Motion. 23 The Court has the inherent authority to impose sanctions. See Barten v. State Farm 24 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. CIV 12-399-TUC-CKJ (LAB), 2014 WL 12639914, at *1 (D. 25 Ariz. Jan. 24, 2014). The court’s inherent power to impose sanctions “derive[s] from the 26 absolute need of a trial judge to maintain order and preserve the dignity of the court.” 27 Zambrano v. City of Tustin, 885 F.2d 1473, 1478 (9th Cir. 1989). Next, this Court may 28 impose sanctions through its statutory authority in 28 U.S.C. § 1927. That statute states 1 || that an attorney who causes the proceedings in a case to be multiplied “unreasonably and 2|| vexatiously” may be required to pay the excessive costs incurred because of such || conduct. 28 U.S.C. § 1927. 4 This Court also has the authority to issue sanctions for noncompliance with the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. See LRCiv 83.1(f). This Court’s Local Rules 6 || incorporates the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct. See LRCiv 83.2(e) (“The ‘Rules 7\| of Professional Conduct,’ in the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona, shall 8 || apply to attorneys admitted or otherwise authorized to practice before the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.”); see also Roosevelt Irr. Dist. v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist., 810 F. Supp. 2d 929, 944 (D. Ariz. 2011) (“The United States District Court for the District of Arizona has adopted the Arizona Rules of || Professional Conduct as its ethical standards.”). One such ethical rule provides that a 13} lawyer shall not knowingly “fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the 14]| controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the 15} client and not disclosed by opposing counsel.” Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 42, ER 3.3(a)(2). 16 Accordingly, 17 IT IS ORDERED that by no later than July 22, 2021, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed on Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, and the law firm of Heng] & Cowan PLC for Plaintiff's failure to identify Williamson v. 20 || Williamson, No. 1 CA-CV-19-0325 FC, 2020 WL 3250849 (Ariz. App. June 16, 2020). □□ Response and Reply briefs may be filed according to the deadlines established in the 22 || Local Rules. 23 Dated this 7th day of July, 2021. 24 Michal T. Shurde 76 Michael T. Liburdi 27 United States District Judge 28 _2-