Johnson v. Rahimian, et al

Filing 25

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 1/15/14. Each party is ordered to show cause in writing no later than 1/24/14 why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file a timely status report. The 1/21/14 Status Conference is VACATED and reset for 3/3/2014 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. Joint Status Report due no later than 14 days prior to status conference. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

Scott Johnson,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:13-cv-01428-GEB-CKD

Plaintiff,
v.
Esmail Rahimian, in his
individual and representative
capacity as Trustee -Rahimian 2005 Family
Revocable Living Trust;
Parisa Rahimian, in her
individual and representative
capacity as Trustee -Rahimian 2005 Family
Revocable Living; Tiffany Le,
an individual,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE

Defendants.

18
19

The November 19, 2013 Order Continuing Status (Pretrial

20

Scheduling) Conference scheduled a status conference in this case

21

on January 21, 2014, and required the parties to file a joint

22

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

23

scheduling conference. No status report was filed as ordered.

24

Therefore, each party is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”)

25

in a writing to be filed no later than January 24, 2014, why

26

sanctions should not be imposed against the party and/or the

27

party’s counsel under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil

28

Procedure for failure to file a timely status report. The written
1

1

response

2

counsel is at fault, and whether a hearing is requested on the

3

OSC.1 If a hearing is requested, it will be held on March 3,

4

2014, at 9:00 a.m., just prior to the status conference, which is

5

rescheduled to that date and time. A joint status report shall be

6

filed

7

conference.

no

shall

later

also

than

state

whether

fourteen

8

Dated:

days

party

prior

or

to

the

the

party’s

status

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

(14)

each

January 15, 2014

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 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).

2