Arizona Court Skeptical Of 'Medical Excuse' From Prenda Lawyers
from the another-day,-another-excuse dept
Prenda’s new favorite lawyer, Steven Goodhue, apparently sought to either delay or get out of another hearing in a Prenda case in Arizona by pleading “medical emergency.” A skeptical court, helmed by Judge G. Murray Snow, followed this up by asking for proof:
On May 17, 2013, the Court set the original OSC hearing in this matter on May 31, 2013. (Doc. 51.) On May 21, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue, based on the personal request of Mr. Goodhue. (Doc. 52.) The next day, the Court granted the motion and set the OSC for June 7, 2013. (Doc. 55.) On June 5, after Plaintiff’s counsel had been aware of the pending hearing for some time, the Court received a telephone call from the office of a local lawyer indicating that he had been requested to enter an appearance at the hearing, but had a conflict that prevented him from doing so. He informally inquired on whether the Court would continue the hearing in order to allow another attorney to enter an appearance on Monday. In light of the fact that the Court had previously granted AF Holdings one continuance, AF Holdings had been aware of the new pending OSC date, and AF Holdings already had Arizona counsel in the action, the Court did not reschedule the hearing. The next day, the Court’s judicial assistant received notice from Mr. Goodhue in the afternoon that he missed his scheduled flight from Denver to attend the OSC hearing the next day due to a medical emergency. He informed the Court that he would not be attending the hearing the next day. Mr. Goodhue thereafter filed a motion to continue, supplemented by a medical record reflecting a visit to Swedish Medical Center apparently signed by a physician’s assistant who consulted with Plaintiff’s counsel. (Doc. 64.) It is in this context that the Court requested the medical records from Mr. Goodhue that supported his version of events in failing to appear before the Court.
Goodhue apparently filed some of the medical records, as requested under seal, but the judge notes that they don’t actually answer all of his questions and some appear to contradict Goodhue’s statements:
Further, in conjunction with the Doc. 74, which the Court authorizes to be filed under seal, the Court notes that the contents of the document are at best partially responsive to the Court’s request. Mr. Goodhue has provided one medical record with Doc. 74 that appears to be inconsistent with the version of events he sets forth in Doc. 74. Further, Mr. Goodhue’s version of events would have generated additional documents that he has yet to provide. Mr. Goodhue is required to continue to supplement the record with all the medical records and documentation indicated in Doc. 71.
Judge Snow hints pretty strongly that he simply doesn’t believe Goodhue, and suggests that he’s stalling, which would be par for the course in a variety of Prenda-related cases.