Park et al v. Bank of America et al

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 10/18/13 ORDERING that Counsel for plaintiffs, Pamela J. Palmieri, is SANCTIONED in the amount of one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00), payable to the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) da ys of docketing of this order; The hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss is CONTINUED until January 13, 2014 at 10:00 a.m; Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of non-opposition no later tha n November 18, 2013. Defendants may file any reply no later than December 9, 2013; The status conference herein is CONTINUED until January 27, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. and status conference reports are due fourteen (14) days before that date. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on any further defendants that they may serve in this matter. (cc Financial Dept)(Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUNG MYN PARK, MIN SOOK SUH, 12 13 14 15 16 No. CIV. S-13-1717 LKK/DAD Plaintiffs, v. ORDER BANK OF AMERICA; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BRIAN T. MOYNIHAN, DAVID C. DARNELL; GARY G. LYNCH; THOMAS K. MONTAG and Does 1-XXXX, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Pending before the court in the above-captioned case is 20 defendants’ motion to dismiss, originally scheduled to be heard 21 on October 21, 2013. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiffs, represented by 22 Pamela J. Palmieri, failed to file a timely opposition or 23 statement of non-opposition, as required by Local Rule 230(c). 24 Accordingly, this court issued an order (i) continuing the 25 hearing on the motion until November 18, 2013; (ii) directing 26 plaintiffs to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition 27 by Monday, October 13, 2013 at 4:30 p.m.; and (iii) ordering 28 counsel for plaintiffs to show cause in writing, no later than 1 1 October 16, 2013, as to why she should not be sanctioned for her 2 failure to respond to the motion in a timely manner. (ECF 3 No. 29.) 4 As plaintiffs failed to file an opposition or a statement of 5 non-opposition, and counsel for plaintiffs failed to respond to 6 the order to show cause, the court was prepared to dismiss this 7 action. However, a review of the docket herein showed that 8 plaintiffs had timely filed a status conference statement in 9 anticipation of the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference, 10 currently set for November 4, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. The court 11 contacted plaintiffs’ counsel and instructed her to immediately 12 file a response to the order to show cause, lest her clients face 13 dismissal. 14 The response filed by plaintiffs’ counsel (ECF No. 12) may 15 charitably be described as the lamest received by this court in 16 some years. Its upshot is that counsel was unaware of the motion 17 to dismiss because she did not receive a physical copy of 18 defendants’ motion. Such an excuse would carry some weight in 19 state court. But as Local Rule 135 makes clear, a “Notice of 20 Electronic Filing” is automatically generated by the court’s 21 electronic case filing system at the time a document is filed, 22 and “[s]ervice via this electronic Notice constitutes service 23 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E).” Plaintiffs’ counsel has 24 registered an email address with the court’s electronic case 25 filing system. She has shown herself to be sufficiently competent 26 to electronically file both a complaint (ECF No. 1) and a status 27 report (ECF No. 11). And the fact that she timely filed a status 28 report demonstrates that she both received and reviewed the 2 1 court’s order setting a status conference herein (ECF No. 5). In 2 other words, plaintiffs’ counsel should have received electronic 3 notice of the motion to dismiss, and complied with the Local 4 Rules as to the deadline for filing an opposition or statement of 5 non-opposition.1 6 While the court is strongly inclined to dismiss this action, 7 it will not do so at this time, solely because it does not wish 8 to forestall plaintiffs from having their day in court due to 9 their counsel’s errors. Nevertheless, plaintiffs’ counsel is now 10 on notice that she must henceforth diligently review her email 11 and the electronic docket in this matter, and timely file all 12 required documents, as the court will accept no further excuses 13 going forward. Future failures of compliance may lead to 14 dismissal, monetary sanctions, and/or notice to the State Bar of 15 California of counsel’s failure to competently perform her 16 professional duties. 17 18 In light of the foregoing, the court hereby orders as follows: 19 [1] Counsel for plaintiffs, Pamela J. Palmieri, is 20 SANCTIONED in the amount of one hundred and fifty dollars 21 ($150.00), payable to the Clerk of the Court within fourteen 22 (14) days of docketing of this order. 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The court declines to enter an order, as requested by plaintiffs’ counsel, to the effect that “Defendants serve Plaintiff with all moving papers at 317 Evelyn Avenue, Roseville CA 95678.” If plaintiffs’ counsel wishes to opt for conventional service, she should review Local Rule 130 and make appropriate arrangements. If she wishes technical assistance with the electronic case filing system, she may contact the help desk at (866) 884-5525. 3 1 2 [2] The hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss is 3 CONTINUED until January 13, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. 4 5 [3] Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file an opposition to the 6 motion to dismiss or a statement of non-opposition no later 7 than November 18, 2013. Defendants may file any reply no 8 later than December 9, 2013. 9 10 [4] The status conference herein is CONTINUED until January 11 27, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. and status conference reports are due 12 fourteen (14) days before that date. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED 13 to serve a copy of this order on any further defendants that 14 they may serve in this matter. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 DATED: October 18, 2013. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?