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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Louise Hubbard,
Plaintiff,
v.
Navajo Health Foundation Incorporated-
Sage Memorial Hospital, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-08152-PCT-MTL
ORDER
On October 6, 2025, the Court issued an Order in which it set an in-person status
conference to, among other things, discuss the pending motions to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction and motion to stay proceedings. (See Doc. 22.) On the day of the status
conference, Plaintiff’s counsel did not appear. At no time did Plaintiff file a motion to
continue the status conference or to appear telephonically.
Court staff were ultimately able to contact counsel by telephone approximately
fifteen minutes after the status conference was scheduled to start, which delayed not only
the status conference but the Court’s remaining calendar. Once counsel did appear
telephonically, his only explanation for his lack of appearance was that the status
conference was not put on his calendar.
The Court finds that sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) and its
inherent authority is appropriate. Rule 16(f)(1) provides that “the court may issue any just
orders . . . if a party or its attorney” (1) “fails to appear at a scheduling or other pretrial
conference,” (2) “is substantially unprepared to participate . . . in the conference,” or (3)
Case 3:25-cv-08152-MTL Document 26 Filed 11/19/25 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.” “Rule 16(f)’s explicit reference to
sanctions reflects the Rule’s intention to encourage forceful judicial management” and
“vests a district court with discretion to impose whichever sanction it feels is appropriate
under the circumstances.” Huebner v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 897 F.3d 42, 53 (2d Cir.
2018) (quotation marks omitted); see also Sherman v. United States, 801 F.2d 1133, 1135
(9th Cir. 1986). The Court may also “fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which
abuses the judicial process” pursuant to its inherent authority to “manage [its] own affairs
so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Chambers v. NASCO,
Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-45 (1991) (citation omitted).
Here, the Court finds that counsel’s failure to review its orders or, if counsel would
not read the orders themselves, ensure that those whom they supervise took care to abide
by them is tantamount to bad faith, because it demonstrates at least reckless disobedience
to their responsibilities as counsel of record, see LRCiv 83.3(a), or willful ignorance. See
Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2001); see also B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dep’t,
276 F.3d 1091, 1108 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming sanctions under inherent authority where
“counsel’s reckless and knowing conduct . . . was tantamount to bad faith”). Plaintiff’s
counsel’s failure to calendar the status conference also resulted in their failure to appear in
person for the conference at the scheduled time, in violation of the Court’s Order. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1). Plaintiff’s failure to appear caused delay for both the Court and defense
counsel and unnecessarily extended proceedings.
As stated at the status conference, the Court an appropriate sanction in this instance
is for Plaintiff’s counsel to pay a fine of $1,000. Compare Lucas Auto. Eng’g, Inc. v.
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 275 F.3d 762, 769 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming sanctions under
Rule 16 for party representative’s unintentional failure to attend mediation session), with
Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of case
without prejudice as a sanction under Rule 16(f) for failing to “appear at a scheduled
pretrial conference or to otherwise prepare for trial”).
. . . .
Case 3:25-cv-08152-MTL Document 26 Filed 11/19/25 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s 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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsel must make payment to the
Clerk of Court by November 25, 2025.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsel must file a Notice of
Compliance within 1 day of making payment.
Dated this 19th day of November, 2025.
Case 3:25-cv-08152-MTL Document 26 Filed 11/19/25 Page 3 of 3