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)
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?