Premier Pool Management Corp. v. Lusk et al

Filing 7

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE and CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 2/16/12: Status Conference RESET for 4/23/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. Plaintiff is ORDERED to Show Cause (O SC) in a writing to be filed no later than 2/27/12, why sanctions should not be imposed against it and/or its counsel under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to file a timely status report. The written response shall also state whether Plaintiff or its counsel is at fault, and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC. Show Cause Response due by 2/27/2012. If a hearing is requested, it will be held on 4/23/12 at 9:00 a.m. just prior to the Status Conference. A status report shall be filed no later than 14 days prior to the Status Conference. Further, Plaintiff is notified under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that failure to serve Defendant Jason Lusk dba Smartproseo with process within the 12 0 day period prescribed in that Rule may result in the unserved defendant being dismissed. To avoid dismissal, on or before 3/5/12, Plaintiff shall file proof of service for this defendant or a sufficient explanation why service was not effected within Rule 4(m)'s prescribed service period. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PREMIER POOL MANAGEMENT CORP, a
Nevada corporation,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12
13

v.
FRANKLIN DEAN LUSK, an
individual; JASON LUSK, DBA
SMARTPROSEO, an individual,
Defendants.
________________________________
The

14

November

2,

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

2011,

2:11-cv-02896-GEB-CKD
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE; FED.
R. CIV. P. 4(M) NOTICE

Order

Setting

Status

(Pretrial

15

Scheduling) Conference (“Order”) scheduled a status conference in this

16

case on February 27, 2012, and required the parties to file a joint

17

status report no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the Status

18

Conference. The Order further required that a status report be filed

19

regardless of whether a joint report could be procured. No status report

20

was filed as ordered.

21

Therefore, Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”) in a

22

writing to be filed no later than February 27, 2012, why sanctions

23

should not be imposed against it and/or its counsel under Rule 16(f) of

24

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to file a timely status

25

report. The written response shall also state whether Plaintiff or its

26

counsel is at fault, and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC.1 If

27
28

1

“If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the impact
(continued...)
1

1

a hearing is requested, it will be held on April 23, 2012, at 9:00 a.m.,

2

just prior to the Status Conference, which is rescheduled to that date

3

and time. A status report shall be filed no later than fourteen (14)

4

days prior to the Status Conference.

5

Further, Plaintiff is notified under Rule 4(m) of the Federal

6

Rules of Civil Procedure that failure to serve Defendant Jason Lusk dba

7

Smartproseo with process within the 120 day period prescribed in that

8

Rule may result in the unserved defendant being dismissed. To avoid

9

dismissal, on or before March 5, 2012, Plaintiff shall file proof of

10

service for this defendant or a sufficient explanation why service was

11

not effected within Rule 4(m)’s prescribed service period.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 16, 2012

14
15

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

(...continued)
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