Jorge L. Ruiz Limon v. Nissan North America, Inc.

Filing 39

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re: SANCTIONS by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: The parties are ORDERED to show cause at an in-person hearing on May 12, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. (the same time as the post-settlement status conference) why they and their counsel should not be sanctioned under Rule 16(f) for their decision to disregard the case management order deadline. Each side shall also file a written response to this order to show cause (OSC), supported by a declaration of counsel, no later than 8:00 a.m. on May 11, 2023. In their written responses to the OSC, counsel shall state whether they have ever been the subject of sanctions or an OSC for failing to follow any court rule or order. SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS. Show Cause Hearing set for 5/12/2023 08:30 AM before Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr.. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 5/11/2023. (jgr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE L. RUIZ LIMON,

Case No. 2:22-cv-06263-SB-MRW

Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
SANCTIONS

v.
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.

On December 9, 2022, the Court entered a Case Management Order (CMO).
Dkt. No. 29. The CMO ordered the parties to complete private mediation by April
28, 2023, to file a status report by May 5, 2023, and to appear on May 12, 2023 for
a post-settlement status conference.
On May 5, the parties filed separate status reports indicating that they have
not mediated because they have not completed depositions that they wished to
complete before mediation. Dkt. Nos. 37, 38. The Court did not condition its
settlement conference deadline on the completion of depositions, and the parties
did not seek a continuance before choosing to ignore the Court-ordered deadline.
Nor have the parties shown good cause for such an extension. Instead, their
respective reports appear to indicate a failure of counsel to cooperate effectively
and professionally to comply with their joint obligations.
The Court observes that it has previously cautioned the parties in this matter
of the need to carefully comply with the Court’s orders and of the risk of sanctions
for noncompliance. In its November 2, 20223 order discharging a prior order to
show cause (OSC), the Court observed that “[b]oth parties’ counsel have failed to
fulfill their obligations in this case with the diligence and care that the Court
expects from counsel appearing before it.” Dkt. No. 20 at 1. The Court gave the

1

parties another chance but cautioned them to carefully comply with all rules and
deadlines and warned that sanctions would likely be imposed for future violations:
Nevertheless, the Court will accept Defendant’s untimely answer,
discharge the order to show cause, and give the parties one more
chance to litigate this action in compliance with the Court’s rules.
The Court expects both parties to pay careful attention to the Court’s
rules and deadlines. Any future violations are likely to result in the
imposition of sanctions.
Id. at 1–2. At the mandatory scheduling conference, the Court noted additional
mistakes in the parties’ joint report and cautioned the parties that “[i]n light of the
Court’s prior warnings to counsel, . . . any further careless mistakes are likely to
result in an order to show cause re: sanctions directed at counsel.” Dkt. No. 28.
Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to show cause at an in-person
hearing on May 12, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. (the same time as the post-settlement status
conference) why they and their counsel should not be sanctioned under Rule 16(f)
for their decision to disregard the CMO deadline. 1 Each side shall also file a
written response to this OSC, supported by a declaration of counsel, no later than
8:00 a.m. on May 11, 2023. In their written responses to the OSC, counsel shall
state whether they have ever been the subject of sanctions or an OSC for failing to
follow any court rule or order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: May 8, 2023

___________________________
Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.
United States District Judge

Plaintiff’s status report was filed by attorney Allen Amarkarian, who is not
designated as counsel in this case. Attorney Kevin Jacobson signed the complaint
and has been designated as lead counsel for Plaintiff since the inception of this
case. Mr. Jacobson is therefore ordered to respond to the OSC and appear at the
OSC hearing. If Plaintiff maintains that another attorney has effectively been
serving as lead counsel, that attorney shall also appear at the hearing.
1

2