The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Kronstadt United States District Court Judge
ORDER AND JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT BISHOP, WHITE, MARSHALL & WEIBEL, PS'S REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES
Date: April 10, 2012 COURTROOM: 750 - 7TH FLOOR LEE SMART P.S. Inc. - Pacific Northwest Law Offices 1800 One Convention Place -- 701 Pike ORDER AND JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES CV11-8717-JEM 5419376_1.doc
THIS MATTER, having come before the Court on Defendant Bishop, White, Marshall & Weibel, PS's Request for a Request for Reasonable attorney Fees, the Court having reviewed the records and files herein, and specifically:
1. Defendant Bishop, White, Marshall & Weibel, PS's Request for a Request for Reasonable attorney Fees, (ECF No. 40 at 3);
2. The Court's Civil Minutes, wherein the Court instructed as follows:
Defendant requested attorney's fees, but Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to respond to that request. If Plaintiff seeks to oppose the request for attorney's fees, he must do so on or before March 19, 2012. Defendant shall file any reply on or before March 23, 2012. If Plaintiff does not oppose the request, the Court will grant the requested amount in attorney's fees. Otherwise, the Court will decide whether to award attorney's fees based on the written submissions, without oral argument.
3. Declaration of Marc Rosenberg in Support of Request for Reasonable Attorney Fees, (ECF No. 51);
And there being no opposition brief having been filed by the Plaintiff, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED that Defendant Bishop, White, Marshall & Weibel's Request Reasonable Attorney Fees is hereby GRANTED.
1. The Court finds that Plaintiff filed a Complaint, (ECF No. 1), but Plaintiff's counsel failed to file any response to the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Bishop, White, Marshall & Weibel, PS's (ECF No. 24). Defendants are therefore entitled to the sanctions provided in local rules L.R. 7-13, L.R. 83-7 and the F.R.Civ.P.
2. Since no reasonable excuse has been provided by Plaintiff's counsel, who has disregarded Court Orders and failed to appear at any scheduled hearing, the Court finds that the failure by Plaintiff's counsel to provide any response to the summary judgment motion, despite proper notice, to be willful, grossly negligent, or reckless, as contemplated by L.R. 83-7(a).
3. The Court also finds that the failure to respond to any of the pending dispositive motions, and failure to appear at any of the scheduled hearings, also rises to the level of bad faith and willful disobedience of a court order, as contemplated by L.R. 83-7(b).
4. L.R. 83-7(c) also provides that the violation of or failure to conform to any of these Local Rules may subject the offending party or counsel to other sanctions that the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances.
5. The Court therefore awards to Bishop, White, Marshall & Weibel, PS the requested attorney fees set forth in the Declaration ...