State Farm General Insurance Company v. Broan-NuTone LLC

Filing 20

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why action should not be DISMISSED and Sanctions Imposed for Failure to Comply with Court Rules, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/16/17. (This order sent to Plaintiff's counsel as directed) Show Cause Response due 14-Day Deadline.(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 Case No. 1:17-cv-00611-DAD-MJS ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AND SANCTIONS IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT RULES BROAN-NUTONE LLC, 13 Defendant. FOURTEEN (14) DAY RESPONSE DEADLINE 14 15 16 17 Defendants initiated this action on April 28, 2017 with the filing of a notice of 18 19 removal of the case from state court. (ECF No. 1.) On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel, Robin Genchel, was directed to register for the Court’s electronic case management and 20 electronic case filing system, CM/ECF. (ECF No. 6.) This notice requiring such 21 registration was mailed to counsel’s address of record. It subsequently was returned as 22 undeliverable on May 15, 2017. To date, it appears that counsel has not registered for 23 CM/ECF or provided the Court with a current address. 24 A scheduling conference took place on November 9, 2017, and David Pillemer 25 appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. However, Mr. Pillemer is not listed as counsel of record. 26 Due to oversight, the issue of Ms. Genchel’s non-compliance was not addressed at the 27 conference. 28 1 Local Rule 135(g) provides: “All attorneys who wish to file documents in the 2 Eastern District of California must be admitted to practice or admitted to appear pro hac 3 vice. Admission to practice in the Eastern District of California includes the requirement 4 that the attorney complete an e-filing registration form and receive a username and 5 password.” 6 Local Rule 182(f) requires counsel to keep the Court apprised of a current 7 address: “Each appearing attorney and pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify 8 the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address or telephone number of the 9 attorney or the pro se party. Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior 10 address of the attorney or pro se party shall be fully effective.” 11 Plaintiff’s counsel is in violation of both of these requirements. 12 The Court has authority to dismiss an action for failure to follow court rules. Local 13 Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with 14 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 15 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent 16 power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose 17 sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing 18 Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 19 party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local 20 rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for 21 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 22 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a complaint); 23 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply 24 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 25 U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 26 with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 27 (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 28 2 1 In determining whether to dismiss an action on this basis, the Court must consider 2 several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the 3 Court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the 4 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less 5 drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; 6 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 7 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why monetary or 8 terminating sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply with Court rules. It is 9 HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Within fourteen days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff’s counsel 11 shall: (1) register for CM/ECF; (2) provide the Court with a current 12 address; and (3) show cause why sanctions should not be imposed; 13 2. Failure to comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions, 14 including the possibility of terminating sanctions; and 15 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve this order on Plaintiff’s counsel at 16 her address of record, and to additionally send the order to counsel by the 17 following means: 18 a. By mail to the address provided by the California State Bar: 19 Pillemer & Pillemer, 17835 Ventura Blvd, Suite 204, Encino, CA 20 91316-3673; and 21 b. By email to 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 16, 2017 /s/ 25 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 3

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?