Underwood v. O-Reilly Auto Parts, Inc.
Opinion
2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 ANGELA UNDERWOOD, 7 Case No. 2:21-cv-01766-GMN-NJK Plaintiff(s), 8 Order v. 9 O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, et 10 al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is an order for Attorney Kurt Bonds to show cause relating to 13 lack of candor and raising frivolous arguments. Docket No. 181. Attorney Bonds has filed a 14 response. Docket No. 194. Attorney Bonds’ response to the order to show cause relies on a highly 15 technical contention that was not previously articulated to the Court and which Attorney Bonds 16 now acknowledges is “not strongly supported by procedural or case law.” See Docket No. 194 at 17 4.1 Such excuses are not compelling. The time for articulating that argument was in opposing the 18 motions to compel, not in a subsequent response to an order to show cause. Moreover, the time 19 for conducting research on that position was before opposing the motions to compel, not in 20 preparing a response to an order to show cause. The Court expects better from Attorney Bonds 21 moving forward. 22 23 1 Attorney Bonds suggests that it is an “extreme” measure for federal judges to refer 24 attorneys to the state bar for potential disciplinary action. See Docket No. 194 at 5. Federal judges no doubt prefer to expend their time and resources on other matters. See Dela Rosa v. Scottsdale 25 Mem. Health Sys., Inc., 136 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1998). Nonetheless, federal judges have a specific duty to address potential attorney misconduct: “A judge should take appropriate action 26 upon receipt of reliable information indicating the likelihood . . . that a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct.” Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 3(B)(6); see 27 also United States v. Mendoza, 468 F.3d 1256, 1262 (10th Cir. 2006) (endorsing the district court’s “well put” assertion that “[j]udges are obligated to alert disciplinary authorities to possible 28 unethical conduct by attorneys”). ] In all other respects, the order to show cause is DISCHARGED. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: October 5, 2022
Nancy J..Koppe 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Underwood v. O-Reilly Auto Parts, Inc. (Underwood v. O-Reilly Auto Parts, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.