Stein v. Bank of America, N.A., et al.,

Filing 62

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTINUING FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/4/12 ORDERING that Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause ("OSC") in a writing to be filed no later than 12/7/12, why she and/or her couns el should not be sanctioned five hundred dollars ($500.00) for failure to file a timely final pretrial statement and an additional two hundred dollars ($200.00) for failing to timely pay the original 11/21/12 monetary sanction. The writte n response shall state whether Plaintiff or her counsel is at fault, and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC. If a hearing is requested, it will be held on 1/14/13, at 1:30 p.m., just prior to the final pretrial conference, which is reset to that date and time. A joint final pretrial statement shall be filed no later than seven (7) days prior to the final pretrial conference. The parties shall give themselves adequate time to meet and confer in advance of this filing date to timely pre pare and file a joint statement. Plaintiff is warned that the continued failure to comply with the Rules and/or this Court's orders could result in this action being dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(b) and judgment entered in favor of Defendants. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MARIA CHRISTINA STEIN, aka MARY
STEIN,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13
14
15

v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., successor
in interest to Countrywide Bank,
FSB; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. aka
“MERS”,
Defendants.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:10-cv-02827-GEB-EFB
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
CONTINUING FINAL PRETRIAL
CONFERENCE

16

An Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) was filed on November 15, 2012,

17

directing Plaintiff to explain in a writing to be filed no later than

18

November 19, 2012, why sanctions should not be imposed against her

19

and/or

20

statement. (ECF No. 56.) Because of this failure, a previously scheduled

21

final pretrial conference was continued to December 10, 2012, and the

22

parties were required to file a joint status report no later than seven

23

(7) days prior to the rescheduled final pretrial conference. Id.

her

counsel

for

failure

to

file

a

timely

final

pretrial

24

Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to the November 15, 2012

25

OSC. Therefore, an order imposing monetary sanctions was filed on

26

November 21, 2012, in which Plaintiff’s counsel was sanctioned two

27

hundred dollars

($200.00).

(ECF

No.

28
1

59.)

The

November

21st order

1

required Plaintiff’s counsel to pay the monetary sanction no later than

2

November 26, 2012. Id.

3

Plaintiff’s counsel has not paid the two hundred dollar

4

($200.00) monetary sanction and again failed to participate in filing a

5

joint pretrial statement. Therefore, Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause

6

(“OSC”) in a writing to be filed no later than December 7, 2012, why she

7

and/or her

8

($500.00) under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

9

(“Rules”) for failure to file a timely final pretrial statement and an

10

additional two hundred dollars ($200.00) for failing to timely pay the

11

original November 21, 2012 monetary sanction. The written response shall

12

state whether Plaintiff or her counsel is at fault, and whether a

13

hearing is requested on the OSC.1 If a hearing is requested, it will be

14

held on January 14, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., just prior to the final pretrial

15

conference, which is rescheduled to that date and time. A joint final

16

pretrial statement shall be filed no later than seven (7) days prior to

17

the

18

adequate time to meet and confer in advance of this filing date to

19

timely prepare and file a joint statement.2

final

counsel

pretrial

should

not

conference.

be

The

sanctioned

parties

five

shall

hundred

give

dollars

themselves

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

“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

The failure of one or more of the parties to participate in
the preparation of any joint document required to be filed in this case
does not excuse the other parties from their obligation to timely file
the document in accordance with this Order. In the event a party fails
to participate as ordered, the party or parties timely submitting the
document shall include a declaration explaining why they were unable to
(continued...)
2

1

Further, since the Court questions whether monetary sanctions

2

sufficiently motivate the Plaintiff to comply with the Rules and this

3

Court’s orders, Plaintiff is warned that the continued failure to comply

4

with the Rules and/or this Court’s orders could result in this action

5

being dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(b) and judgment entered in

6

favor of Defendants.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 4, 2012

9
10

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

(...continued)
obtain the cooperation of the other party.
3