Patricia Stewart, D.O. v. American Association of Physician Specialists, Inc. et al
Filing
315
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SANCTIONS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The Court hereby ORDERS the parties TO SHOW CAUSE, in person, on October 5, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 11, why Plaintiffs counsel and Defendants counsel should not be sanctioned for th e reasons set forth herein, and why Mr. Okerblom should not be removed as counsel from this case. All other dates and deadlines in this action, including the pre-trial conference, are VACATED and taken off calendar until the Court rules on the pending Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 236, 237). (See order for details). (shb)
1
2
3
4
5
United States District Court
Central District of California
6
7
8
9
PATRICIA STEWART, D.O.,
Case № 5:13-cv-1670-ODW(DTBx)
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
12
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
13
PHYSICIAN SPECIALISTS, INC.;
14
WILLIAM CARBONE; ROBERT
15
CERRATO; STEPHEN MONTES;
16
SUSAN SLOMINSKI; SVETLANA
17
SANCTIONS
RUBAKOVIC,
Defendants.
18
19
In light of the extremely high number of Ex Parte Applications, Requests, and
20
Motions in the above titled case and discord amongst the parties, the Court hereby
21
ORDERS the parties TO SHOW CAUSE, in person, on October 5, 2015 at 1:30
22
p.m. in Courtroom 11, why Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel should not
23
be sanctioned for the reasons set forth herein, and why Mr. Okerblom should not be
24
removed as counsel from this case. All other dates and deadlines in this action,
25
including the pre-trial conference, are VACATED and taken off calendar until the
26
Court rules on the pending Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 236, 237).
At the OSC hearing, the parties will be expected to address the following:
27
28
///
1
1. Grounds for Sanctions
2
a. Pursuant to this Court’s Scheduling and Case Management Order (ECF
3
No. 168), the parties were required to file the Final Pre-Trial Conference
4
Order no later than September 28, 2015. Under Local Rule 16-7.1,
5
responsibility for the filing of the Final Pre-Trial Conference Order rests
6
with Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s counsel filed it on September 30, 2015, two
7
days after it was due. (ECF Nos. 311, 312.)
8
b. Defendants’ Motion for Monetary Sanctions for Abuse of Discovery
9
(ECF No. 234) alleges improper conduct against Plaintiff’s counsel, Dr.
10
William Okerblom, for filing frivolous and ill-conceived motions
11
resulting in needless delay and frustrating Defendants’ attempts to depose
12
him as a fact witness. Defendants cite many examples of such conduct in
13
their papers. Dr. Okerblom claims in his untimely Opposition (ECF No.
14
239) that he was not trying to frustrate Defendants’ attempts to depose
15
him, but was merely trying to limit the scope of the deposition. This
16
Motion is currently pending before the Court, and may be ruled on by the
17
Court at the OSC hearing.
18
19
c. The parties failed to conduct the mandatory pre-trial meeting of counsel.
L.R. 16-2. (ECF Nos. 257, 258.)
20
d. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Misleading Testimony (ECF No. 268) as an
21
additional, unauthorized opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
22
Judgment. Dr. Okerblom later requested to withdraw the Notice, and
23
essentially admitted that the document was frivolous. (ECF No. 283.)
24
Counsel should be prepared to explain to the Court why they should not be
25
sanctioned for this conduct, for their lack of professional civility toward each other,
26
and for their utter failure to follow the rules of this Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; Fink
27
v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he district court has the inherent
28
authority to impose sanctions for bad faith, which includes a broad range of willful
2
1
2
improper conduct.”).
2. Dr. Okerblom’s Continued Representation
3
On September 9, 2015, Dr. Okerblom filed an Ex Parte Application for an
4
Order Permitting Plaintiff to Withdraw as Attorney and for a Two Month Stay. (ECF
5
No. 271.) Dr. Okerblom stated that his ability to serve as counsel and to adequately
6
represent his client was “adversely affected” when he became a witness in this case on
7
August 14, 2015. (Ex Parte Appl. 2.) In the Application, Okerblom “takes full
8
responsibility for his error in judgment that led him to believe that he could serve both
9
as a witness and as a zealous advocate simultaneously” and he admits that “being
10
personally involved in the case has caused him to make mistakes that he otherwise
11
would not have made.” (Id. at 2–3.) Dr. Okerblom also requested a two month stay in
12
the case so that he may obtain and prepare new counsel. (Id.) Defendants indicated
13
their intent to oppose to this Application, but never ultimately filed an opposition. (Id.
14
at 2.)
15
On September 14, 2015, Dr. Okerblom filed a Notice to Withdraw the
16
Application. (ECF No. 285.) This Notice was improperly filed. (ECF No. 287.) In
17
the Notice, Dr. Okerblom stated that he is seeking co-counsel to assist him at the time
18
of trial in the event that he is required to testify at trial as a witness.
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
3
1
The parties should be prepared to explain to the Court why Dr. Okerblom
2
should not be removed as counsel in this action given that (1) he appears to be a
3
witness in this action, and (2) he has admitted that he cannot effectively represent his
4
client in this action.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
October 1, 2015
8
9
10
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?