Johnson v. Zarakani et al

Filing 29

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/9/15 ORDERING that the 2/20/15 ORDER to Show Cause directed to William Bernheim 24 is DISCHARGED.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SCOTT JOHNSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-0696-MCE-KJN

ORDER

v.
SAEED ZARAKANI, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On January 14, 2015, the court issued an order directing defendants’ counsel of record,

17
18

William Bernheim, to pay $500.00 in monetary sanctions for his failure to comply with the

19

court’s prior orders, including a December 29, 2014 order to show cause (ECF No. 20), and to

20

provide the court with a written statement informing the court whether he intends to further

21

represent defendants in this matter by no later than January 28, 2015. (ECF No. 22.) Mr.

22

Bernheim failed to comply with this order by the specified deadline. Accordingly, the court

23

issued an order to show cause on February 20, 2015 directing Mr. Bernheim to “show cause in

24

writing why he failed to timely pay the $500.00 in monetary sanctions ordered against him on

25

January 14, 2015.” (ECF No. 24.) On that same day, Mr. Bernheim filed a response to the

26

court’s order to show cause. (ECF No. 25.) The court’s docket indicates that Mr. Bernheim

27

subsequently paid the monetary sanctions imposed on January 14, 2015.

28

////
1

Mr. Bernheim apologizes in his response for his failure to timely respond to the court’s

1
2

prior orders, which he states was due to his lack of awareness that the court had issued the orders

3

until he received an email regarding the court’s issuance of the February 20, 2015 order. (ECF

4

No. 25 at 1.) Mr. Bernheim asserts that his lack of awareness stemmed from problems regarding

5

his firm’s email account that were the result of a dispute with the firm’s email vendor. (Id. at 2.)

6

He claims that from a period beginning sometime around November of 2014 through early

7

February of 2015, many emails sent to him did not reach the firm’s email account and were

8

returned to the sender as undeliverable. (Id.) Mr. Bernheim also relates that the relationship

9

between his firm and defendants was terminated in November of 2014 due to defendants’ lack of

10

cooperation.1 (Id.) Mr. Bernheim received an email from attorney Bruce Nielson on December

11

17, 2014, indicating that Mr. Nielson would be assuming representation of defendants in this

12

case. (Id. at 2, 5.) With regard to his failure to appear at the December 18, 2014 hearing on

13

plaintiff’s motion to compel, Mr. Bernheim claims that he was not contacted by Mr. Neilson, Mr.

14

Zarakani, or opposing counsel regarding his need to attend. (Id. at 2.)

15

In light of this showing, the court finds it appropriate to discharge the February 20, 2015

16

order to show cause. Although the court finds it regrettable that it had to resort to monetary

17

sanctions, Mr. Bernheim’s failure to ensure that he was substituted out as defendants’ counsel of

18

record in accordance with the court’s local rules and repeated failure to make himself aware of

19

and comply with court orders while the docket reflected that he was defendants’ counsel of record

20

left the court with little choice. The court cautions Mr. Bernheim that so long as the docket

21

reflects that he is defendants’ counsel of record in this case, he shall remain responsible for

22

making himself aware of the proceedings in this matter and responding as required by the court’s

23

local rules and orders.

24

////

25

////

26
27
28

1

In support of this claim, Mr. Bernheim attaches a letter dated November 21, 2014 he sent to
plaintiff’s counsel informing them that Mr. Zarakani had terminated his legal relationship with
Mr. Bernheim’s firm. (ECF No. 25 at 3.)
2

1

The court also notes that Mr. Bernheim has attached a substitution of attorney form to his

2

response that is dated December 17, 2014, and signed by both himself and Bruce Nielson. (ECF

3

No. 25 at 6.) However, this document does not contain the signatures of Saeed Zarakani and an

4

authorized representative of Mardan, Inc. indicating that defendants consent to this substitution.

5

Accordingly, the requested substitution will not be approved by the court unless and until it is

6

signed by defendants. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 182(g).

7

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the February 20, 2015 order to

8

show cause directed to William Bernheim (EFC No. 24) is DISCHARGED.

9

Dated: March 9, 2015

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3