Safety Vision, LLC v. Enterprise Funding Corp et al

Filing 144

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULE 16 by Magistrate Judge John D. Early. As a result of the foregoing, each party is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, by May 16, 2024, why sanctions should not be imposed on such party, including potential monetary sanctions and/or other sanctions available under the applicable authorities, for the foregoing failures to comply the requirements of Local Rule 16, et seq., set forth above.(SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (mba)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.
Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
8:21-cv-01750-JDE

Date

May 13, 2024

Safety Vision, LLC v. Enterprise Funding Group, et al.

Present: The Honorable

John D. Early, United States Magistrate Judge

Maria Barr

n/a

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

n/a

n/a

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Further Order to Show re Failures to Comply Local Rule 16

On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff Safety Vision LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Enterprise
Business Consulting Inc. d/b/a/ Enterprise Funding (“Defendant”), the only remaining defendant
that has not been terminated or as to whom no default has been entered, filed a Joint Report and
Stipulation requesting that a prior stay order be lifted and a trial and deadlines be set. Dkt. 139
(“Stipulation”). Based on the Stipulation and the record, on January 3, 2024, the Court entered an
order lifting the stay and setting a trial date of June 4, 2024, final pretrial conference date of May
23, 2024, and other deadlines, including an April 5, 2024, deadline to complete alternative dispute
resolution (“ADR”) proceedings. Dkt. 140 (“Amended Scheduling Order”).
Based on the Stipulation, the ADR proceeding set was private mediation, with the parties
“ordered to complete such a mediation by [April 5, 2024] and file a Joint Report as to the outcome
of the mediation within five days of completion.” Id. at 2. If the mediation occurred on the last
possible day, the last day to file the Joint Report was April 10. No such report was filed. As a
result, the Court ordered the parties file a Joint Report by April 12, 2024, regarding the outcome of
the mediation, among other things. Dkt. 142 (“Prior OSC”). The parties did not file a Joint Report
by April 12. Instead, Plaintiff filed a Report on April 12 that generally complained about failures by
Defendant and defaulted defendant, John Lagatta, to appear for deposition and otherwise
participate in the action. Dkt. 143 (“Response”). Plaintiff further advised that counsel for
Defendant suggested Plaintiff file a dispositive motion, which Defendant would not oppose. Id.
Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that it “took no further steps to seek a private party to mediate or incur
further litigation expense in trying to obtain cooperation of Mr. Lagatta.” Id. Plaintiff concludes its
Response by stating it “wishes to . . . remove its request for a jury trial” and instead proceed as a
bench trial. Id. However, Plaintiff never thereafter filed any dispositive motion, nor did Plaintiff file
any application or formal request to strike Defendant’s demand for jury trial asserted in its Answer.
See Dkt. 67 at 1, 14.
More than a month has passed since the filing of the Response, with the Final Pretrial
Conference set to proceed on May 23, 2024. In the interim, the deadline for each party to file its
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.
Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
8:21-cv-01750-JDE

Date

May 13, 2024

Safety Vision, LLC v. Enterprise Funding Group, et al.

Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law (which should include, among many other things, a
statement by each party whether any issues are triable to a jury as a matter of right and if so,
whether a timely demand for a jury trial has been made) has run (see Local Civil Rule (“L.R.”) 164, et seq.); the deadline for each party to file its own witness list has run (see L.R. 16-5); and the
deadline for the parties to file a Joint Exhibit List has run (see L.R. 16-6.1), in each instance
without any of the foregoing documents having been filed. In fact, no filings of any kind have been
made by any party since the filing of the Response. The deadline for Plaintiff to lodge a proposed
Final Pretrial Conference Order will run as of the date of this Order.
As a result of the foregoing, each party is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, by
May 16, 2024, why sanctions should not be imposed on such party, including potential monetary
sanctions and/or other sanctions available under the applicable authorities, for the foregoing
failures to comply the requirements of Local Rule 16, et seq., set forth above. Plaintiff is advised
that a failure by Defendant to “cooperate” does not excuse Plaintiff from filing its Memorandum of
Contentions of Fact and Law and its Witness List, each of which Plaintiff was required to file on its
own, nor does it excuse Plaintiff from taking independent steps to prosecute this action in a timely
fashion, as required by Rules 1 and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is also
ordered to explain why, after Defendant suggested Plaintiff file a dispositive motion on February
12, 2024 (see Dkt. 143-2 at 1), Plaintiff has not done so more than two months later, now ten days
before the Final Pretrial Conference. Plaintiff is further advised that a unilateral statement in a
report that a party wishes to proceed with a bench trial, rather than a jury trial, does not, by itself,
terminate an opposing party’s potential right to a jury trial demanded in its answer, nor is it a
motion or application, supported by evidence and argument, necessary for a request to overcome
an opposing party’s demand for a jury trial to be properly considered.
The parties are advised that a jury has been summonsed to appear on June 4, 2024, and, as
of the date of this Order, barring an intervening contrary order, a jury trial will proceed starting on
that date. Each party is further directed to include in its response to this Order to Show Cause, its
position as to “whether any issues are triable to a jury as a matter of right and, if so, whether a
timely demand for jury has been made, or whether the matter will be tried to the Court” (L.R. 164.4; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(a),(b),(d); L.R. 38-1. Counsel for the parties are welcome to confer
and jointly propose an approach to resolve the matter short of trial on an expedited basis, but given
the age of the case and the lack of any apparent recent diligence by the parties, the parties are
advised that a trial continuance is unlikely to be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 1