Jory v. Bank of America, N.A. et al.

Filing 25

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not be Imposed (Doc. No. 20 ), signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/18/2017. (Within fourteen days of the date of this order, counsel for plaintiff and for defendant Caliber Home Loans, Inc. and Summit Management Company shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed due to their for failure to file the dispositional documents as indicated in their stipulations which have been filed with the court in this action. Alternatively, counsel may file the stipulated dismissal.) (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KIT P. JORY,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:16-cv-00941-DAD-MJS
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED

CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.;
SUMMIT MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
LLC; DOES 1-20 inclusive,

(Doc. No. 20)

Defendants.

17
18

Defendants Caliber Home Loans, Inc. and Summit Management Company removed this

19

action from Stanislaus Superior Court of California on June 26, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) The court

20

subsequently scheduled a hearing for September 6, 2016 on a motion to dismiss brought by

21

defendant Bank of America, N.A. (Doc. No. 7) and motion to remand brought by plaintiff (Doc.

22

No. 9). (See Doc. Nos. 10 and 14.) On the morning of the scheduled hearing plaintiff’s counsel

23

informed the court via email that the parties had reached a global settlement in the matter.

24

However, at the scheduled hearing that same day – at which plaintiff’s counsel did not appear –

25

defendant Bank of America’s counsel David Pinch appeared and informed the court that although

26

defendant had previously made a settlement offer to plaintiff, the parties had not in fact reached a

27

settlement. Accordingly, the court continued the motions hearing to October 6, 2016. (Doc. No.

28

18.) On September 8, 2016, plaintiff filed a notice of conditional settlement of the entire matter.
1

1

(Doc. No. 19.) The notice stated that a request for dismissal would be filed with the court no later

2

than October 24, 2016. (Doc. No. 19.) Based upon this notice, the assigned magistrate judge

3

issued an order on September 15, 2016 vacating all court dates set and requiring that dispositional

4

documents be submitted no later than forty-five days from the date of the order. (Doc. No. 20.)

5

The magistrate judge noted that “[f]ailure to comply with this order may be grounds for the

6

imposition of sanctions against anyone who contributes to its violation.” (Id. at 2.)

7

On October 7, 2016, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal

8

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) against defendant Bank of America, N.A. (Doc. No. 21.)

9

Accordingly, the court terminated defendant Bank of America, N.A. from the action and found

10

that the motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 7) filed by Bank of America, N.A. had been rendered moot.

11

(Doc. No. 22.)

12

Nonetheless, plaintiff’s counsel has not filed dispositional documents with respect to

13

plaintiff’s claims against the remaining two defendants, Caliber Home Loans, Inc. and Summit

14

Management Company. The parties did file on October 24, 2016 a stipulation that a settlement

15

agreement with respect to those defendants and claims was expected to be finalized and a

16

stipulation of dismissal filed no later than November 23, 2016. (Doc. No. 23 at 2.) On November

17

22, 2016, the parties filed another stipulation indicating that the settlement agreement was

18

expected to be finalized and a stipulation of dismissal filed no later than January 4, 2017. (Doc.

19

No. 24 at 2.) January 4, 2017 has come and gone, but the remaining parties in this litigation have

20

not filed dispositional documents or otherwise contacted the court.

21

Accordingly, within fourteen days of the date of this order, counsel for plaintiff and for

22

defendant Caliber Home Loans, Inc. and Summit Management Company shall show cause in

23

writing why sanctions should not be imposed due to their for failure to file the dispositional

24

documents as indicated in their stipulations which have been filed with the court in this action.

25

Alternatively, counsel may file the stipulated dismissal. The parties are forewarned, that should

26

they fail to respond to this order to show cause in writing and/or fail to file dispositional

27

documents, as required by this order, sanctions will likely be imposed. See Chambers v. NASCO,

28

/////
2

1

Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 42–46 (1991) (recognizing that it is within the inherent authority of the court to

2

control its docket and require compliance with its orders).

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated:

January 18, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3