Johnson v. Cairns et al
Filing
21
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 04/21/11 ORDERING that the 18 Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED. (Benson, A.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SCOTT N. JOHNSON ,
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
2:10-cv-02280-JAM-KJN PS
v.
KEVIN M. CAIRNS, INDIVIDUALLY AND
D /B /A DANTE ’S ON THE RIVER ;
NANCY C. CAIRNS, INDIVIDUALLY AND
D /B /A DANTE ’S ON THE RIVER ,
15
Defendants.
ORDER
16
/
17
18
On February 24, 2011, this case came before the undersigned for a status (pretrial
19
scheduling) conference. (Dkt. No. 15.)1 Prior to that status conference, plaintiff Scott N.
20
Johnson filed a status report on his own behalf. (Dkt. No. 16.) Defendants Kevin and Nancy
21
Cairns (the “defendants”), proceeding without counsel in this action, neither filed a status report
22
nor appeared at the status conference and accordingly, the undersigned issued an Order to Show
23
Cause on February 24, 2011. (Dkt. No. 18.)
24
25
26
1
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), and was referred to the undersigned by an
order entered February 16, 2011. (Dkt. Nos. 13-14.)
1
1
On March 16, 2011, the defendants filed a timely response to the Order to Show
2
Cause. (Dkt. No. 20.) Therein, defendants apologized for their failure to attend the status
3
conference. They revealed a misunderstanding that the action was “over” because their bank
4
teller had informed them that Mr. Johnson was not allowed to proceed with further lawsuits.
5
(Id.) This explains, but does not excuse, defendants’ failure to appear at the status conference. It
6
neither explains nor excuses defendants’ prior failure to file a status report.
7
Defendants may not rely on passing suggestions by their acquaintances indicating
8
that defendants might lack the obligation to fully defend themselves in the pending action. To
9
the contrary, defendants are obligated to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
10
the Eastern District Local Rules until the court informs them otherwise. Even though they are
11
not represented by an attorney, defendants are obligated to fully comply with the Federal Rules of
12
Civil Procedure and the Eastern District Local Rules. See Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or
13
of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for
14
imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the
15
inherent power of the Court.”); Local Rule 183(a) (“Any individual representing himself or
16
herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these
17
Rules, and all other applicable law.”); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se
18
litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”).
19
Notwithstanding the foregoing, because defendants are proceeding without
20
counsel and may not have fully understood their obligations as defendants in this action, the
21
undersigned discharges the Order to Show Cause and will not sanction defendants at this time.
22
However, their future failure to abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Eastern
23
District Local Rules may subject defendants to sanctions, including possibly entry of default
24
judgment against them. See e.g., Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831
25
(9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. In the
26
2
1
exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or
2
dismissal.”).
3
For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
4
1.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
The Order to Show Cause (Dkt. No. 18) is discharged.
DATED: April 21, 2011
7
8
9
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
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?