ZAROUR v. CHUBB & SON, INC.

Background

The court’s February 14, 2022 order required the parties to provide information about outstanding items connected with the appraisal, set deadlines for completing those items, and explain how the parties and the umpire would finish them by March 14, 2022. The parties submitted letters, but the court found that neither letter supplied all the required information. The letters also did not state whether the umpire had concerns about meeting the March 14 deadline. The court therefore assumed that the umpire expected and intended to meet it.

The February 14 order also required the parties to immediately serve that order on the umpire and file proof of service by February 16. The court said the parties had not filed proof of service and had not stated whether they had served the umpire.

Required submissions and service

The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by February 26, 2022. The letter had to provide the information missing from their earlier submissions; explain whether Hillman Environmental had actually been retained by the umpire; describe the timing of Hillman’s independent mold analysis and any inspection of the home; and advise whether the umpire expected to meet the March 14 deadline.

The court separately ordered Plaintiff’s counsel, Tomas Espinosa, to immediately serve the February 22 order and the February 14 order on the umpire and file proof of service on the docket by February 23, 2022.

Sanction and warning

The court relied on its inherent power to supervise its proceedings and sanction counsel or a litigant for disobeying court orders. It stated that counsel had repeatedly disregarded the court’s orders despite being given considerable leeway to explain the noncompliance.

The court required counsel to pay a fine of $500 per day if counsel failed to comply with any part of the February 22 order or any future order in the case. The fine would continue each day until counsel complied with the order’s requirements. The court found that this sanction was sufficient, and no greater than necessary, to secure future compliance.

The court also reiterated that it would not extend the appraisal deadline absent a showing of truly extraordinary circumstances. It stated that, if the appraisal was not completed within the required timeline, it might dismiss the case for the parties’ repeated failure to comply with the court’s order without further notice. The order did not dismiss the case at this stage. Judge John P. Cronan signed the order on February 22, 2022.