Duran v. City of Porterville, et al

Filing 54

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Failing to Appear at Hearing. Pretrial conference was set for August 12, 2015. Accordingly, counsel for Plaintiff Amy Duran is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this Court should not impose sancti ons for his failure to appear at the pretrial conference. Counsel shall respond to this Order to Show Cause, in writing, no later than August 17, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause may result in the imposition of sanctions. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/12/2015. (Herman, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AMY DURAN,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:13-cv-370-BAM
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED
FOR FAILING TO APPEAR AT HEARING

CITY OF PORTERVILLE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

The scheduling order in this case set trial for September 29, 2015, and set the pretrial

18

conference for August 12, 2015. (Doc. 31). On August 12, 2015, the Court held a pretrial

19

conference. Counsel Bruce Praet made a timely appearance by telephone on behalf of Defendants.

20

At 8:30 AM, the time of the hearing, Plaintiff Amy Duran had not appeared. After waiting ten

21

minutes, no appearance was made by Plaintiff Amy Duran when the case was called at 8:40 AM.

22

The Court proceeded with the conference, set pretrial deadlines, and adjourned the hearing.

23
Plaintiff Amy Duran did not appear.
24
25

Plaintiff’s failure to appear for the August 12, 2015, pretrial conference, even after the

26

conference was delayed to accommodate potential tardiness, hampers the efficient management

27

of the Court’s docket. The purpose of the pretrial conference is to set pretrial deadlines and also

28
1

1

prepare parties on the steps necessary for trial. While the Court proceeded with the conference

2

and set pretrial dates, the Court did not have the benefit of Plaintiff’s input. This results in a

3

waste of Court time and resources are unnecessarily expended to address Plaintiff’s failure to

4

appear. See Chism v. Nat’l Heritage Life Ins. Co., 637 F.2d 1328, 1332 (9th Cir.1981) (holding

5
6

that the plaintiff’s misconduct, which included failing “to comply with pretrial conference

7

obligations” “contributed to court congestion by wasting valuable court time”). Plaintiff’s

8

disregard of the Court’s scheduling order is particularly burdensome given the eve of trial;

9

however, Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to show good cause for his failure.

10
11

Accordingly, counsel for Plaintiff Amy Duran is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why
this Court should not impose sanctions for his failure to appear at the pretrial conference.

12
13
14

Counsel shall respond to this Order to Show Cause, in writing, no later than August 17, 2015, at
12:00 p.m. Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause may result in the imposition of

15

sanctions.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

August 12, 2015

18

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2