Walker v. Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company et al
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not be Imposed for Plaintiff's and Defendants' Counsels' Failure to Appear, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/16/2021. Ten-Day Deadline. (Maldonado, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BRITTNEY DENISE WALKER,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00156-AWI-BAM
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED
FOR PLAINTIFF’S AND DEFENDANTS’
COUNSELS’ FAILURE TO APPEAR
AETNA HEALTH AND LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
TEN (10) DAY DEADLINE
On December 29, 2020, Brittney Denis Walker (“Plaintiff”) filed this complaint in Fresno
Superior Court. (Doc. No. 1.) On February 5, 2021, Defendants Aetna Resources, LLC, Aetna
Health and Life Insurance Company, Aetna, Inc., and CVS Pharmacy, Inc., removed the action to
this Court. (Id.) On February 8, 2021, an initial scheduling conference was set for April 27, 2021.
(Doc. No. 7.) Due to the status of the case, the initial scheduling conference was continued
several times until July 1, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 11, 21.) On July 1, 2021, the Court held a scheduling
conference, however, after the Court identified several named parties that had not been served the
Court set a status conference for August 31, 2021 to allow the parties time to discuss proper
parties and effectuate service. (Doc. No. 25.) On August 30, 2021, the status conference was
continued to November 2, 2021. (Doc. No. 33.) On October 20, 2021, the status conference was
again continued to November 16, 2021 at 9:00 am. (Doc. No. 34.)
On November 16, 2021, the Court initiated the Zoom video conference platform.
Plaintiff’s Counsel Nicol Hajjar did not appear. Defendants’ Counsel Daniel Fears or Andrew
Haeffele did not appear. The Court remained on the Zoom video conference until approximately
9:10 am. The Court also contacted the law firms of both Plaintiff and Defendants’ counsel and
was sent to voicemail at both firms.
Pursuant to Local Rule 110, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any
order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . .
within the inherent power of the Court.” L.R. 110. The Court has the inherent power to control its
docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including
dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Counsel Nicol Hajjar and Defendant’s Counsel Daniel Fears and
Andrew Haeffele are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing within ten (10) days of
the date of service of this order why sanctions should not be imposed against them for their
failure to appear at the November 16, 2021 status conference.
Failure to respond to this order will result in the imposition of sanctions, including
dismissal of this action for failure to comply with court orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 16, 2021
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?