Datatel Solutions, Inc., v. Keane Telecom Consulting, LLC, et al
ORDER and ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/20/2014 ORDERING Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE in writing by 12/1/2014 why sanctions should not imposed for failure to file a timely status report. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Status Conference is CONTINUED to 2/9/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. Status Report due 14 days prior to the status conference.(Donati, J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DATATEL SOLUTIONS, INC., a
KEANE TELECOM CONSULTING,
LLC, a New Jersey limited
liability company; OUTREACH
TELECOM AND ENERGY, LLC, a
New Jersey limited liability
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL
The July 22, 2014, Order to Show Cause scheduled a
status conference in this case on November 24, 2014, and required
Plaintiff to “file a status report no later than fourteen (14)
days prior to the status conference in which it explains the
status of the default proceedings.” (OSC 2:7-9, ECF No. 60.) No
status report was filed as ordered.
Therefore, Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”)
in a writing to be filed no later than December 1, 2014, 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.1 The written response
This is the second occasion in which Plaintiff has failed to timely file
a status report.
shall also state whether Plaintiff or its counsel is at fault,
and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC.2 If a hearing is
requested, it will be held on February 9, 2015, at 9:00 a.m.,
just prior to the status conference, which is rescheduled to that
date and time. Plaintiff shall file a status report no later than
fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference in which it
explains the status of the default proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 20, 2014
“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.” In re 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. Myers v. Shekter (In re Hill), 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985).
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?