Bel Montez, et al., v. City of Stockton et al

Filing 52

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/29/16 ORDERING that Plaintiff's counsel, and not his client, is sanctioned in the amount of $300 for his failure to comply with the Court's local rules. This sum shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court no later than 7/6/16. By no later than 7/27/2016, Mr. Cook shall either (1) present appropriate evidence of the appointment of a representative for minor Plaintiffs J.G. and I.G. under state law, or (2) file a Motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem. Lastly, Defendants MOTIONS are DENIED without prejudice for the reasons stated on the record. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ISABEL BEL MONTEZ, et al.,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:10-cv-3149-MCE-EFB

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

CITY OF STOCKTON, a municipal
corporation, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

This case was before the court on June 29, 2016, for hearing on defendants’ motion for

19

sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 (ECF Nos. 44, 45, 46); defendants

20

Timothy McDermott and Mark Marquez’s motions to compel plaintiffs J.G. and I.G. to provide

21

further responses to discovery requests (ECF Nos. 40, 41); and the court’s order to show cause

22

why plaintiffs should not be sanctioned for violating Local Rule 230 (ECF No. 47). Attorney

23

James Cook appeared on behalf of plaintiffs; Deputy City Attorney Ted Wood appeared on behalf

24

of defendants.

25

For the reasons stated on the record, plaintiffs’ counsel failed to show good cause for his

26

failure to timely file either an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motions in

27

violation of Local Rule 230. Accordingly, counsel, and not his client, is sanctioned in the amount

28

of $300 for his failure to comply with the court’s local rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 (“Failure of
1

1

counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds

2

for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

3

inherent power of the Court.”). This sum shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court no later than July

4

6, 2016. This sanction is personal to counsel and is not to be passed on to his client in the form of

5

attorney fees and costs. Counsel shall inform the plaintiffs in writing of this order and provide a

6

copy to the plaintiffs. Counsel shall file by July 6, 2016, a declaration that his clients have been

7

so informed.

8

Further, as stated on the record plaintiffs’ counsel has failed to comply with Federal Rule

9

of Civil Procedure 17 and Local Rule 202(a) as to the minor plaintiffs. Accordingly, by no later

10

than July 27, 2016, Mr. Cook shall either (1) present appropriate evidence of the appointment of a

11

representative for minor plaintiffs J.G. and I.G. under state law, or (2) file a motion for the

12

appointment of a guardian ad litem. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 202(a). Counsel is admonished that

13

failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110.

14
15
16
17

Lastly, defendants’ motions are denied without prejudice for the reasons stated on the
record.
So Ordered.
DATED: June 29, 2016.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2