Boulas v. United States Postal Service et al
ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS ON JAKRUN'S SHODKI FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS AND DISCHARGING ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 184, and the Courts inherent authority, monetary sanctions of $250.00 are imposed against Jakrun S. Sodhi for his failure to comply with orders of this Court; Jakrun S. Sodhi shall pay the amount of $250.00 to the Clerk of the United States District Co urt, Eastern District of California, no later than March 16, 2018; Jakrun S. Sodhi shall file a proof of payment within five (5) days of payment of the sanction; The February 21, 2018 order to show cause and March 27, 2018 order to show cause are discharged; and Failure to comply with this order may result in the issuance of further sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/9/2018. (Hernandez, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:17 -cv-01588-LJO-SAB
ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY
SANCTIONS ON JAKRUN S. SODHI FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDERS AND DISCHARGING ORDERS
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al., TO SHOW CAUSE
(ECF Nos. 5, 6, 10)
MARCH 16, 2018 DEADLINE
On March 9, 2018, Jakrun S. Sodhi appeared before the undersigned to respond to an order
19 requiring his personal appearance to show cause for the failure to respond to numerous court
20 orders issued in this action.
Plaintiff Matthew Boulas filed this action against the United States Postal Service and
24 Christopher Andrew Bradley on November 29, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) The summonses and new civil
25 case documents issued on November 30, 2017. (ECF Nos. 2, 3.) An initial scheduling conference
26 was set for February 20, 2018. (ECF No. 3.) On February 13, 2018, an order issued continuing
27 the mandatory scheduling conference as the return of summons had not been filed in the action.
28 (ECF No. 4.) The February 13, 2018 order required Plaintiff to file a notice of the status of service
1 within five days. (Id.) No notice of the status of service was filed.
On February 21, 2018, an order issued requiring Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions
3 should not be imposed for the failure to comply with the February 13, 2018 order. (ECF No. 5.)
4 Plaintiff was to file a response within five days and was forewarned that failure to show cause may
5 result in the imposition of sanction, including the dismissal of this action. (Id.) Plaintiff did not
6 respond to the February 21, 2018 order. On February 27, 2018, an order issued requiring Plaintiff
7 to personally appear for an order to show cause hearing due to the failure to respond to the prior
8 orders. (ECF No. 6.)
On March 3, 2018, an order issued continuing the show cause hearing and Plaintiff filed the
10 return of service on the defendants. (ECF Nos. 7, 8, 9.) On March 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed a written
11 response to the order to show cause. (ECF No. 10.)
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the underlying purpose of the rules is to
15 secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination” of an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. To
16 effectuate this purpose the rules provide for sanctions against parties that fail to comply with court
17 orders or that unnecessarily multiply the proceedings. See e.g. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Fed. R. Civ.
18 P. 37(b). Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the court to issue any just
19 order if a party or attorney fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.
The court also possesses inherent authority to impose sanctions to manage its own affairs
21 so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501
22 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). The court’s inherent power is that which is necessary to the exercise of all
23 others, including to protect the due and orderly administration of justice and maintain the authority
24 and dignity of the court. Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980). In order to
25 coerce a defendant to comply with the court’s orders, the court may issue sanctions for every day
26 the defendant fails to respond to the court’s orders to show cause. See Lasar v. Ford Motor Co.,
27 399 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing court’s authority to impose civil sanctions
28 “intended to be remedial by coercing the defendant to do what he had refused to do.”).
The Local Rules of the Eastern District of California (“L.R.”) provide that “[f]ailure of
2 counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for
3 imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the
4 inherent power of the Court.” L.R. 110. Further, “[i]n the event any attorney subject to these
5 Rules engages in conduct that may warrant discipline or other sanctions, any Judge or Magistrate
6 Judge may initiate proceedings for contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 42, or may,
7 after reasonable notice and opportunity to show cause to the contrary, take any other appropriate
8 disciplinary action against the attorney.” L.R. 184(a). “In addition to or in lieu of the foregoing,
9 the Judge or Magistrate Judge may refer the matter to the disciplinary body of any Court before
10 which the attorney has been admitted to practice.” L.R. 184(a).
Here, Plaintiff failed to respond to the order requiring him to provide notice of the status of
14 service and the order requiring him to show cause for such failure. In his response to the order
15 requiring his personal appearance to show cause why sanctions should not issue, Plaintiff
16 addresses the failure to file the proofs of service, however, there is no mention of the failure to
17 comply with the February 13, 2018 order requiring Plaintiff to file a notice of status of service or
18 the February 21, 2018 order requiring Plaintiff to show cause for the failure to comply with the
19 February 13, 2018 order. At the hearing, counsel stated that he may have been out of the office
20 during the time period because he was sick with the flu.
Plaintiff is admonished for his failure to comply with orders requiring his response in this
22 action. When an order is issued, the Court requires a response from the litigants, and counsel has
23 failed to show cause for the failure to respond to the orders of this Court. Counsel admitted that
24 his office would have received the orders and provided no excuse for the failure to respond. The
25 Court finds that a sanction in the amount of $250.00 for the failure to comply with the Court’s
26 February 13, 2018, and February 21, 2018 orders is necessary to address the extent of the failure to
27 comply and to deter similar conduct by counsel in the future.
28 / / /
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 184, and
the Court’s inherent authority, monetary sanctions of $250.00 are imposed against
Jakrun S. Sodhi for his failure to comply with orders of this Court;
Jakrun S. Sodhi shall pay the amount of $250.00 to the Clerk of the United States
District Court, Eastern District of California, no later than March 16, 2018;
Jakrun S. Sodhi shall file a proof of payment within five (5) days of payment of the
The February 21, 2018 order to show cause and March 27, 2018 order to show
cause are discharged; and
Failure to comply with this order may result in the issuance of further sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 9, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?