Louise Hubbard v. Navajo Health Foundation Incorporated-Sage Memorial Hospital, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: November 19, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-08152
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Louise Hubbard, No. CV-25-08152-PCT-MTL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Navajo Health Foundation Incorporated- Sage Memorial Hospital, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 On October 6, 2025, the Court issued an Order in which it set an in-person status 16 conference to, among other things, discuss the pending motions to dismiss for lack of 17 jurisdiction and motion to stay proceedings. (See Doc. 22.) On the day of the status 18 conference, Plaintiff’s counsel did not appear. At no time did Plaintiff file a motion to 19 continue the status conference or to appear telephonically. 20 Court staff were ultimately able to contact counsel by telephone approximately 21 fifteen minutes after the status conference was scheduled to start, which delayed not only 22 the status conference but the Court’s remaining calendar. Once counsel did appear 23 telephonically, his only explanation for his lack of appearance was that the status 24 conference was not put on his calendar. 25 The Court finds that sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) and its 26 inherent authority is appropriate. Rule 16(f)(1) provides that “the court may issue any just 27 orders . . . if a party or its attorney” (1) “fails to appear at a scheduling or other pretrial 28 conference,” (2) “is substantially unprepared to participate . . . in the conference,” or (3) 1 “fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.” “Rule 16(f)’s explicit reference to 2 sanctions reflects the Rule’s intention to encourage forceful judicial management” and 3 “vests a district court with discretion to impose whichever sanction it feels is appropriate 4 under the circumstances.” Huebner v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 897 F.3d 42, 53 (2d Cir. 5 2018) (quotation marks omitted); see also Sherman v. United States, 801 F.2d 1133, 1135 6 (9th Cir. 1986). The Court may also “fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which 7 abuses the judicial process” pursuant to its inherent authority to “manage [its] own affairs 8 so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Chambers v. NASCO, 9 Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-45 (1991) (citation omitted). 10 Here, the Court finds that counsel’s failure to review its orders or, if counsel would 11 not read the orders themselves, ensure that those whom they supervise took care to abide 12 by them is tantamount to bad faith, because it demonstrates at least reckless disobedience 13 to their responsibilities as counsel of record, see LRCiv 83.3(a), or willful ignorance. See 14 Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2001); see also B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dep’t, 15 276 F.3d 1091, 1108 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming sanctions under inherent authority where 16 “counsel’s reckless and knowing conduct . . . was tantamount to bad faith”). Plaintiff’s 17 counsel’s failure to calendar the status conference also resulted in their failure to appear in 18 person for the conference at the scheduled time, in violation of the Court’s Order. See Fed. 19 R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1). Plaintiff’s failure to appear caused delay for both the Court and defense 20 counsel and unnecessarily extended proceedings. 21 As stated at the status conference, the Court an appropriate sanction in this instance 22 is for Plaintiff’s counsel to pay a fine of $1,000. Compare Lucas Auto. Eng’g, Inc. v. 23 Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 275 F.3d 762, 769 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming sanctions under 24 Rule 16 for party representative’s unintentional failure to attend mediation session), with 25 Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of case 26 without prejudice as a sanction under Rule 16(f) for failing to “appear at a scheduled 27 pretrial conference or to otherwise prepare for trial”). 28 . . . . 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs counsel—Forrest G Buffington and Nathan Scott □□ Anderson of Barber & Borg LLC—are jointly and severally sanctioned in the amount of $1,000 pursuant to Rule 16(f) and the Court’s inherent authority. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsel must make payment to the || Clerk of Court by November 25, 2025. 7 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff's counsel must file a Notice of 8 || Compliance within 1 day of making payment. 9 Dated this 19th day of November, 2025. 10 Micha T. Sithurdle 12 Michael T, Liburdi 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-