Snyder v. Bank of America, N.A.
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:15-cv-04228
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Snyder v. Bank of America, Judge Westmore set a withdrawal hearing and ordered Snyder to explain why her case should not be dismissed.
Pamela Marie Snyder, her counsel Attorney Applbaum, and Bank of America, N.A., et al.; the order required Snyder to respond and appear and addressed counsel’s request to withdraw.
What happened
In Snyder v. Bank of America, Pamela Marie Snyder’s lawyer did not submit the required pretrial materials by the deadline. Her lawyer instead asked to withdraw, citing communication problems, unpaid fees, and Snyder’s reported difficulty coping with the case.
Bank of America asked the court to dismiss the case because Snyder had not followed the court’s pretrial order. The court did not dismiss the case in this order, but it raised concerns that Snyder might be unable to present witnesses or exhibits because the required filings were missing.
Judge Westmore ordered a hearing on the lawyer’s request to withdraw, required Snyder to explain why the case should not be dismissed, and ordered her to attend the January 28, 2021 pretrial conference. The court warned that failing to appear would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Snyder v. Bank of America, N.A. · No. 4:15-cv-04228
- Kandis Westmore
- Jan. 6, 2021
Background
The court’s October 13, 2020 case-management and pretrial order required the parties to submit a joint pretrial statement and other trial materials by January 5, 2021. Pamela Marie Snyder did not submit those materials.
Snyder’s counsel, Attorney Applbaum, moved to withdraw from the representation. The motion cited irreconcilable differences, lack of communication, and financial hardship resulting from Snyder’s alleged failure to pay attorney’s fees. Counsel also stated that Snyder had claimed she was medically and psychologically unable to cope with the stress of the case but had not authorized counsel to communicate with her medical provider about her claims. Counsel further stated that Snyder had been unable to answer basic questions about the case, making effective representation difficult.
Requests and concerns
Snyder did not request an extension of time to submit the pretrial materials. Bank of America requested dismissal as a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f), which allows a court to impose sanctions for violating a pretrial order. The court also cited Rule 41(b), which allows dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move a case forward.
The court observed that the pretrial order barred a party from calling witnesses or presenting exhibits not disclosed in the required pretrial statement unless the court granted permission for good cause. Based on the missing filings and counsel’s statements about Snyder’s communication, the court said it appeared highly likely that Snyder would not be permitted to call witnesses or present exhibits to a jury. The court also noted that a settlement conference had been canceled after Snyder failed to prepare for it.
Order
The court ordered that Attorney Applbaum’s motion to withdraw would be heard at the January 28, 2021 pretrial conference. Any opposition to the motion was due January 19, 2021.
The court ordered Snyder to show cause—meaning to explain—by January 15, 2021, why the case should not be dismissed as a sanction under Rule 16(f) or for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The court also ordered Snyder to appear at the January 28 pretrial conference by Zoom and to be prepared to explain her failure to communicate with counsel and submit the required pretrial materials. The court stated that failure to appear would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
This order did not itself dismiss the case or decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.