Kent v. California Department of Consumer Affairs et al
Filing
61
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/2/12, ORDERING that plaintiff is sanctioned in amount of $100, payable to the Clerk of Court. However, the undersigned notes that it appears that plaintiff paid the sanction on 2/2/12. On or before 2/17/12, plaintiff shall file a Notice of Current Contact Information, which provides plaintiff's current mailing address and valid phone number. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JOHN KENT,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Plaintiff,
No. 2:09-cv-02905 KJM KJN PS
v.
STUART RIND; RICK VILLUCCI;
DIANA ROACH; RICK LOPEZ;
STEPHEN TAKIMOTO; LESLIE
YOAKUM; CARL VEGA; SUE
STIREWALT; KEVIN KERR; JIM
KLEIMAN; THOMAS EBLING; SUE
PAYNE; ANDREA SOUZA; ANITA
SISNEROS; JACQUELYN MAES;
PATRICIA NELSON; and UNKNOWN
CSLB EMPLOYEES 1-15,
18
Defendants.
ORDER
19
/
20
21
On February 2, 2012, the undersigned conducted a status (pretrial scheduling)
22
conference (“scheduling conference”) in this case, and a scheduling order will be separately
23
issued.1 This order concerns plaintiff’s ongoing failure to follow the court’s orders and Local
24
Rules, and the resulting sanction.
25
1
26
This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California
Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1
1
As discussed at the scheduling conference, plaintiff failed to file a status report by
2
January 19, 2012, as ordered by the court (see Order, Dec. 29, 2011, Dkt. No. 55), and materially
3
failed to communicate with defendants’ counsel regarding the preparation of status reports in
4
advance of the scheduling conference. Instead, plaintiff filed a status report on January 30, 2012,
5
which addresses plaintiff’s failure to follow the court’s order by stating: “Plaintiff apologizes for
6
his tardy submission of this status report” (Dkt. No. 59). As noted by the undersigned, plaintiff
7
has repeatedly and consistently failed to follow the court’s orders and procedural rules in this
8
case and another he filed in this court. (See Order, Nov. 16, 2011, at 4, Dkt. No. 52; Order &
9
Order To Show Cause, Oct. 21, 2011, Dkt. No. 50; Order, Sept. 29, 2011, Dkt. No. 48; Order To
10
Show Cause & Findings & Recommendations, June 28, 2011, Dkt. No. 42; Order, Jan. 4, 2011,
11
Dkt. No. 29; see also, e.g., Findings & Recommendations, Dec. 1, 2011, Dkt. No. 73, adopted by
12
Order, Jan. 9, 2012, Dkt. No. 74, filed in Kent v. City of Sacramento et al., 2:07-cv-02361 MCE
13
KJN PS (closed).)
14
Because of plaintiff’s repeated failures to comply with the court’s orders and
15
Local Rules, the undersigned was left with no choice but to either impose a monetary sanction on
16
plaintiff or recommend that his case be dismissed. See Local Rules 110 and 183(a). In view of
17
the policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, the undersigned announced at the scheduling
18
conference an intention to impose a $250 sanction on plaintiff, but allowed plaintiff to address
19
the possible sanction. After hearing from plaintiff, the undersigned reduced the sanction to $100,
20
payable within 30 days. It appears that plaintiff paid the $100 sanction on February 2, 2012,
21
shortly after the scheduling conference.
22
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
23
1.
Plaintiff is sanctioned in amount of $100, payable to the Clerk of Court.
24
However, the undersigned notes that it appears that plaintiff paid the sanction on February 2,
25
2012.
26
////
2
1
2.
On or before February 17, 2012, plaintiff shall file a Notice of Current
2
Contact Information, which provides plaintiff’s current mailing address and valid phone number.
3
Plaintiff is reminded of his obligation to notify the Clerk of Court of any change to his address or
4
phone number. Local Rule 182(f) (“Each appearing attorney and pro se party is under a
5
continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address or telephone
6
number of the attorney or the pro se party. Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior
7
address of the attorney or pro se party shall be fully effective. Separate notice shall be filed and
8
served on all parties in each action in which an appearance has been made.”)
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 2, 2012
11
12
13
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?