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)

Download PDF
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?