AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Rose L. Brand & Associates, P.C. (RLBA) initiated mortgage foreclosure proceedings on behalf of Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC. The district court ordered the parties to participate in the Foreclosure Settlement Program (FSP), requiring in-person attendance of attorneys or self-represented parties and necessary parties with full and final settlement authority at the settlement facilitation. RLBA's attorney, Jennifer L. Isom, attended the conference with a power of attorney from the Plaintiff, believing this satisfied the court's requirements. The settlement facilitator canceled the conference upon learning a Plaintiff representative would not appear in person, leading to sanction proceedings against RLBA and the Plaintiff for alleged non-compliance with the court's order and local rule (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• RLBA: Argued that obtaining a power of attorney for its attorney to attend the settlement conference satisfied the court's order requiring in-person attendance of necessary parties with full and final settlement authority (para 5).
• District Court: Initiated sanction proceedings against RLBA and the Plaintiff for failing to comply with the court-ordered settlement conference requirements (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether RLBA violated the district court's referral order by not ensuring in-person attendance of a Plaintiff representative at the settlement conference.
• Whether RLBA violated the local rule by the same action.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's sanction order against RLBA, finding that the district court erred in determining RLBA violated the referral order and in applying the local rule in this case (para 27).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Jennifer L. Attrep writing the opinion, concurred by Judges Julie J. Vargas and Kristina Bogardus, found that:
  The referral order did not explicitly require a non-attorney representative of the Plaintiff to attend the settlement conference if an attorney with full and final settlement authority was present. RLBA's interpretation that the attorney's presence with a power of attorney satisfied the order was reasonable (paras 11-13).
  The district court's sanction was based on a misunderstanding of the referral order and local rule applicability. The referral order's requirements were deemed to have relaxed the more stringent local rule requirements, and RLBA had no notice that the local rule's requirements still applied in light of the referral order's specific directives (paras 18-26).