Robert Sanchez v. Long Beach Muffler et al

Filing 22

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE LACK OF COOPERATION IN DRAFTING JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II:Plaintiff Robert Sanchez is hereby ORDERED TO SHOWCAUSE, in writing only, no later than January 8, 2018, why he did not confer with Defendant o r assist in the preparation of the 26(f) Report in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Courts Order. Failure to timely respond to this Order may result in dismissal of this action without further notice for failure to prosecute. The Scheduling Conference is CONTINUED until February 5, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. (lc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

ROBERT SANCHEZ,

14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff,
v.
LONG BEACH MUFFLER; DENNIS
BRIAN SCHOEDL; CURTIS P.
GRIEDER,

Case No. 2:17-cv-06824-ODW(AGR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
LACK OF COOPERATION IN
DRAFTING JOINT SCHEDULING
REPORT

Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court has received Defendant Dennis Brian Schoedl’s unilateral Rule 26(f)
report. (ECF No. 19.) Defendant Schoedl claims that Plaintiff “wholly failed” to
engage in drafting the Rule 26 Scheduling Conference Report and, therefore, he
submitted the report without knowledge of Plaintiff’s position of the facts or the
development of a joint discovery plan. (Id.)
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Order setting the
scheduling conference, the parties must meet at least 21 days in advance of the
Scheduling Conference to confer and to then jointly prepare and file a Rule 26(f)

1

report. (ECF No. 18 at 2.) Plaintiff’s failure to confer with Defendant or to submit

2

the joint report in advance of the Scheduling Conference or to attend the Scheduling

3

Conference may result in the dismissal of the action or the imposition of sanctions.

4

(See id. at 4.)

5

Accordingly, Plaintiff Robert Sanchez is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW

6

CAUSE, in writing only, no later than January 8, 2018, why he did not confer with

7

Defendant or assist in the preparation of the 26(f) Report in accordance with the

8

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Order. Failure to timely respond to

9

this Order may result in dismissal of this action without further notice for failure to

10

prosecute. The Scheduling Conference is CONTINUED until February 5, 2018 at

11

1:30 p.m.

12

///

13

///

14

///

15

///

16

///

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

2

1

It has also come to the Court’s attention that Defendant Shoedl attempted to file

2

an answer on behalf of himself and Defendants Long Beach Muffler (a business) and

3

Curtis P. Grieder (an individual). (ECF No. 14.) Defendant Grieder did not sign the

4

Answer. (Id.) Only individuals may appear pro se, not businesses or organizations.

5

C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.2.2. Additionally, individuals who are not attorneys may not

6

represent other individuals or businesses. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.2.1. Therefore,

7

Defendants Long Beach Muffler and Grieder have not appeared before the Court. The

8

Court encourages Defendant Shoedl to seek out legal representation or, at the very

9

least, consult with the pro bono clinic located at 312 N. Spring St. Los Angeles, CA

10

90012-4701.1

11
12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

January 4, 2018

17

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

For more information, Defendant can visit http://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/.

3