Stein v. Bank of America, N.A., et al.,
Filing
64
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S PRETRIAL STATMENT and ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/11/12. Richard C. Sinclair, Esq. is sanctioned $700.00, in addition to the November 21st $200.00 sanction, equaling 6;900.00 to be paid to the Clerk of this Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on 12/14/12. Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE in writing no later than 12/14/12 why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for repeated failure to comply with the Rules and this Court's orders. The Final Pretrial Conference remains on the calendar for 1/14/13. A joint final retrial statement shall be filed no later than 7 days prior to conference. (Manzer, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
MARIA CHRISTINA STEIN, aka MARY
STEIN,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Plaintiff,
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 STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S
PRETRIAL STATEMENT AND
IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS;
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
18
Plaintiff’s separate pretrial statement filed on December 6,
19
2012, is stricken since it was untimely, and Plaintiff did not provide
20
justification for failing to participate in preparing and filing a joint
21
pretrial statement. See Order to Show Cause 2, n.1, November 15, 2012,
22
ECF No. 56.
23
Further, an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) issued on December 5,
24
2012, directing Plaintiff to explain why sanctions should not be imposed
25
against her and/or her counsel for failure to file a timely final
26
pretrial statement and failing to timely pay the November 21, 2012 two
27
hundred dollar ($200.00) monetary sanction. (ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff did
28
1
1
not respond to the December 5th OSC and has not paid the November 21st
2
monetary sanction.
3
Since Plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond to the December
4
5th OSC, has twice failed to file a timely final pretrial statement, and
5
has yet to pay the November 21st monetary sanction, Richard C. Sinclair,
6
Esq. is sanctioned seven hundred dollars ($700.00). This sanction, in
7
addition to the November 21st two hundred dollar ($200.00) sanction
8
(equaling nine hundred dollars ($900.00)), shall be paid to the Clerk of
9
this Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on December 14, 2012, by a check made
10
payable to the “United States Treasury.” This sanction is personal to
11
counsel or his law firm and shall not be transmitted to counsel’s
12
clients.
13
Also, Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”) in a writing
14
to be filed no later than December 14, 2012, why this action should not
15
be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
16
(“Rule”)
17
Plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with the Rules and this Court’s
18
orders.1 Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the OSC’s filed on November
19
15, 2012, and December 5, 2012, demonstrates that monetary sanctions are
20
ineffective in obtaining Plaintiff’s compliance. Further, the Court is
21
unable to prepare an appropriate Final Pretrial Order in this action
22
without Plaintiff’s compliance.
41(b)
and
judgment
entered
in
favor
of
Defendants
for
23
Lastly, the final pretrial conference remains on calendar for
24
January 14, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. A joint final pretrial statement shall be
25
26
27
28
1
The December 5th OSC contained the following
“Plaintiff is warned that the continued failure to comply with
and/or this Court’s orders could result in this action being
with prejudice under Rule 41(b) and judgment entered in
Defendants.” (ECF No. 62, 3:3-6.)
2
warning:
the Rules
dismissed
favor of
1
filed
2
conference.
3
Dated:
no
later
than
seven
(7)
days
prior
to
the
final
pretrial
December 11, 2012
4
5
6
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?