Advanced Building & Fabrication, Inc., et al. v. California Highway Patrol, et al.

Filing 10

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 6/27/14: Each party is Ordered to Show Cause in a writing to be filed no later than July 7, 2014, why sanctions should not be imposed against the party and/or the party's counsel under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to file a timely status report. Status Conference RESET for 8/4/2014 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

ADVANCED BUILDING &
FABRICATION, INC., a
California Corporation; and
ROBERT HONAN, an individual,

No.

9

2:13-cv-02380-GEB-CKD

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

Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
12
13

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL;
JOHN WILSON, an individual;
CURTIS J. AYERS an
individual; and DOES 1 to 20,
inclusive,

14
Defendants.
15
16
The February 11, 2014 Order Granting Stay, (ECF No. 9),
17
continued the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference until July
18
7, 2014, and required the parties to file a joint status report
19
no

later

than

fourteen

(14)

days

prior

to

the

scheduling

20
conference. No status report was filed as ordered.
21
Therefore, each party is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”)
22
in

a

writing

to

be

filed

no

later

than

July

7,

2014,

why

23
sanctions should not be imposed against the party and/or the
24
party’s counsel under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil
25
Procedure for failure to file a timely status report. The written
26
response

shall

also

state

whether

the

party

or

the

party’s

27
counsel is at fault, and whether a hearing is requested on the
28
1

1

OSC.1 If a hearing is requested, it will be held on August 4,

2

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

3

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

4

filed

5

conference.

6
7

no

later

than

fourteen

(14)

days

prior

to

the

status

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 27, 2014

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

“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