Graham v. Equifax Information Services LLC ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 YOTTIAK GRAHAM, 7 Case No. 2:24-cv-00308-JAD-NJK Plaintiff(s), 8 ORDER v. 9 EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES 10 LLC, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is an order for attorneys George Haines, Gerardo Avalos, and 13 Gia Marina to show cause. Docket No. 19. Counsel filed a response. Docket No. 22. 14 The Court remains concerned as to the failure to comply with ordered deadlines, but it 15 trusts that the monetary sanctions imposed for similar misconduct in another case will prove 16 sufficient deterrent moving forward. See Kelley v. S. Cap. Finance Grp., LLC, No. 2:22-cv-01708- 17 ART-NJK, Docket No. 23 (D. Nev. June 17, 2024). While monetary sanctions will not be imposed 18 in this case, the Court ADMONISHES attorneys George Haines and Gerardo Avalos.1 If counsel 19 continue to choose to litigate cases in this forum, then they have an obligation to exercise due care 20 and reasonable professional diligence in each of those cases. Carisbrook Asset Holding Tr. v. SFR 21 Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 2019 WL 2393614, at *3 n.2 (D. Nev. June 6, 2019). If similar issues continue 22 in the future, counsel should expect that such violations will result in more significant 23 repercussions than the light monetary sanctions imposed to date. Garcia v. GEICO Cas. Co., 2014 24 WL 7474773, at *3-4 (D. Nev. Jan. 6, 2014) (addressing need for more serious repercussions when 25 similar misconduct continues in the future). 26 27 1 While the papers make plain that Plaintiff’s counsel bear the brunt of the responsibility, 28 e.g., Docket No. 22 at 3, the Court expects better from defense counsel moving forward. 1 The order to show cause is otherwise DISCHARGED. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: July 2, 2024 Ue. Nancy J. Koppe* 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28