Fishburne v. CitiMortgage Incorporated

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Cherie A. Fishburne, No. CV-19-00256-PHX-JJT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 CitiMortgage Incorporated, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 At issue are Defendants S. Matt Collins, Carrie Collins, David LaSpaluto, and Sarah 16 Sabalos-LaSpaluto’s (collectively, “Attorney Defendants”) Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 43) 17 and Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Non-Taxable Costs (Doc. 49). On 18 November 23, 2019, the Court entered an Order (Doc. 47) and Judgment (Doc. 48) 19 dismissing Plaintiff Cherie A. Fishburne’s claims in this matter but reserved judgment on 20 Attorney Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions and permitted them to file a Motion for Award 21 of Attorneys’ Fees. After they filed the Attorneys’ Fees Motion, the Court entered an Order 22 (Doc. 51) requiring Plaintiff to respond to the Motion and warning Plaintiff that if she failed 23 to timely respond, Attorney Defendants would be entitled to summary disposition of the 24 Attorneys’ Fees Motion. Plaintiff did not file a Response. 25 Because the Court warned Plaintiff of the consequences of failing to timely file 26 responsive briefs in this matter, Attorney Defendants are entitled to summary disposition 27 of their Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Non-Taxable Costs (Doc. 49) under 28 Local Rule 7.2(i). See Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) 1 || (concluding that the pro se plaintiffs failure to timely respond to the defendant’s motion 2 || for summary judgment when the court had warned plaintiff of the consequence of a failure 3 || to respond warranted granting the motion for summary judgment in the defendant’s favor under the applicable Local Rule). In the Motion, Attorney Defendants properly 5 || demonstrated their entitlement to attorneys’ fees in this matter and substantiated that the 6 || amount requested is reasonable. 7 The Court would also grant Attorney Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 43), 8 || although the sanction would be dismissal of this action and an award of attorneys’ fees and || costs, which the Court has already found Attorney Defendants are entitled to. The Court agrees with Attorney Defendants that Plaintiff had ample opportunity to correct or 11 || withdraw the Complaint in this matter and, as the Court already stated in its previous Order (Doc. 47), Plaintiff already litigated and lost the claims she brought in this lawsuit in a 13} previous lawsuit. 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendants S. Matt Collins, Carrie 15} Collins, David LaSpaluto, and Sarah Sabalos-LaSpaluto’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 43). 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants S. Matt Collins, Carrie Collins, 17 || David LaSpaluto, and Sarah Sabalos-LaSpaluto’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees □□ and Non-Taxable Costs (Doc. 49). 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter a Supplemental 20 || Judgment against Plaintiff Cherie A. Fishburne and in favor of Defendants S. Matt Collins, Carrie Collins, David LaSpaluto, and Sarah Sabalos-LaSpaluto, in the amount of $5,463.50 || plus interest accruing at the rate of 6.25% per annum from the date of Supplemental 23 || Judgment until paid in full. 24 Dated this 23rd day of January, 2020. CN

26 wef hlee— Unifga State#District Judge 27 28

_2-