Fetter v. Bonner, et al.,

Filing 31

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 7/23/13: Plaintiff and his counsel are hereby ordered to show cause in a filed response to this OSC on or before August 12, 2013, in which they explain why sanctions should not be issued. HEARING as to 28 MOTION to DISMISS RESET for 8/26/2013 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

15

)
)
2:12-cv-02235-GEB-EFB
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
)
CONTINUING HEARING ON
PLACER COUNTY SHERIFF; EDWARD N. )
DEFENDANTS EDWARD N. BONNER,
BONNER, individually and in his
)
COUNTY OF PLACER, AND PLACER
official capacity; COUNTY OF
)
COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT’S
PLACER; CALIFORNIA FORENSICS
)
MOTION TO DISMISS
MEDICAL GROUP (CFMG); PLACER
)
COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; and
)
DOES 1 THROUGH 20,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )
On May 31, 2013, Defendants Edward N. Bonner, County of

16

Placer, and Placer County Sheriff Department filed a motion to dismiss

17

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 28.) The motion is noticed

18

for hearing on July 29, 2013. Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition

19

or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion in compliance with

20

Local Rule 230(c).

21

2013, commencing at 9:00 a.m. in light of Plaintiff’s failure to file an

22

opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion as required by

23

Local Rule 230(c), so that Plaintiff could file a response to the

24

motion.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

GEORGE FETTER,

The motion is rescheduled for hearing on August 26,

25

Further, Plaintiff and his counsel are hereby ordered to show

26

cause (“OSC”) in a filed response to this OSC on or before August 12,

27

2013, in which they explain why sanctions should not be issued under

28

Local Rule 110 because of Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition or

1

1

statement of non-opposition to the motion. Plaintiff is warned that a

2

sanction could include a monetary sanction and/or dismissal of this case

3

or claims with prejudice. The written response to this OSC also shall

4

state whether Plaintiff or his counsel is at fault, and whether a

5

hearing is requested on the OSC.1 If a hearing is requested, it will be

6

held on August 26, 2013, commencing at 9:00 a.m.

7

Dated:

July 23, 2013

8
9

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

“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 Baker, 744
F.2d 1438, 1442 (10th Cir. 1984). Sometimes the “faults . . . of the
attorney may be imputed to, and their consequences visited upon, [the
attorney’s] client.” In re Hill, 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985).
2