Lew v. Long Beach Mortgage et al

Filing 17

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 2/24/10 ORDERING pltf TO SHOW CAUSE in writing no later than 4:00 PM on 3/8/10 why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to file timely status report. If a hearing is requested, it will be held on 3/29/10 at 9:00 AM just prior to the status conference. (Carlos, K)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The October 20, 2009, Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference scheduled a status conference in this case for March 1, 2010, and required the parties to file a joint status report no later than fourteen days prior to the scheduling conference. The Order further required that a status report be No v. LONG BEACH MORTGAGE, PRO CAPITAL MORTGAGE, CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY, JP MORGAN CHASE and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. WAYNE W. LEW, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 02:09-cv-02921-GEB-KJN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

filed regardless of whether a joint report could be procured. status report was filed as ordered.

Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause ("OSC") in a writing to be filed no later than 4:00 p.m. on March 8, 2010, why sanctions should not be imposed against him and/or his counsel under Rule 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to file a timely status report. The written response shall also state

whether Plaintiff or his counsel is at fault, and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC.1 If a hearing is requested, it will be

held on March 29, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., just prior to the status conference, which is rescheduled to that date and time. A status

report shall be filed no later than fourteen days prior to the status conference. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 24, 2010

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

"If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the impact of sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the clients, that is where the impact of the sanction should be lodged." Matter of Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1442 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1014 (1985). Sometimes the faults of attorneys, and their consequences, are visited upon clients. In re Hill, 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985). 2

1