Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Wiz Collision, LLC retained attorney Megan Muoio who failed to appear at a pre-motion conference scheduled for September 23, 2025. Ms. Muoio had requested the conference be held on that date but neglected to calendar it and was engaged in a deposition on another matter at the time. The Court found her conduct amounted to negligent failure to perform her responsibility as an officer of the court, causing proceedings to be delayed and Defendant's counsel to incur expenses. As a result, Ms. Muoio is sanctioned $300.00 payable to Defendant's counsel and must confirm payment by October 9, 2025.
Issues
- The court ordered sanctions in the amount of $300.00, payable to Defendant's counsel to offset expenses that would otherwise be charged to Defendant for Ms. Muoio's failure to appear at the September 23, 2025 pre-motion conference. The sanctions are against Ms. Muoio as attorney of record and are not payable by her client. She must file a letter via ECF by October 9, 2025 confirming payment and that she has not billed her client for the sanction.
- The court determined whether sanctions should be imposed on Ms. Muoio for her failure to appear at the September 23, 2025 pre-motion conference. The court found that Ms. Muoio acted negligently and failed to perform her responsibility as an officer of the court, warranting sanctions despite the absence of bad faith. The court exercised its inherent power to sanction misconduct that is not undertaken for the client's benefit.
Holdings
Ms. Muoio is sanctioned $300.00 for negligently failing to appear at a September 23, 2025 pre-motion conference after requesting that date. The Court found she neglected to calendar the conference, causing delay and unnecessary expense to Defendant's counsel. Sanctions are against the attorney of record, not payable by client. She must file a letter confirming payment by October 9, 2025.
Remedies
The Court ordered Ms. Muoio, attorney of record for Plaintiff Wiz Collision, LLC, to pay $300.00 to Defendant's counsel as sanctions for her failure to appear at a September 23, 2025 pre-motion conference. The sanctions are not payable by her client. By October 9, 2025, Ms. Muoio must file a letter via ECF confirming payment, service of the order on her client, and that she has not billed her client for this sanction or her time responding to the Order to Show Cause.
Legal Principles
The court applies the principle from United States v. Seltzer that a lawyer's negligent or reckless failure to perform their responsibility as an officer of the court warrants sanctions. The court cites Chambers v. NASCO, Inc. for the proposition that sanctions may be imposed absent a finding of bad faith, given the court's inherent power to manage its own affairs and out of concern for opposing counsel's time and the expenditure of fees by the client. Ms. Muoio was sanctioned $300 for neglecting to calendar a conference she had requested, which caused proceedings to delay and required Defendant's counsel to appear at their client's expense.
Precedent Name
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.
- United States v. Seltzer
Judge Name
Kiyo A. Matsumoto
Passage Text
- Ms. Muoio is sanctioned in the amount of $300.00, payable to Defendant's counsel to offset expenses that would otherwise be charged to Defendant for Ms. Muoio's failure to appear at the September 23, 2025 pre-motion conference in this matter. Sanctions are against Ms. Muoio as attorney of record, and are not payable by her client.
- Here, the Court finds that Ms. Muoio acted negligently, and failed to perform her responsibility as an officer of the Court, and, therefore, sanctions are warranted. Ms. Muoio specifically requested that the pre-motion conference be scheduled for September 23, 2025, and the Court accommodated her request by rescheduling the conference to that date. Ms. Muoio then 'neglected to calendar' the conference for the date that she requested, which resulted in her failure to appear at the conference.
- Ms. Muoio's failure to appear 'involve[s] a lawyer's negligent or reckless failure to perform his or her responsibility as an officer of the court.' Thus, the Court may impose sanctions absent a finding of bad faith, 'given the court's inherent power 'to manage [its] own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases,' as well as out of concern for opposing counsel's time, and the expenditure of fees by the client.'