Hopson v. Waterway Creations, Inc. et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE and CONTINUING STATUS PRETRIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 7/23/2014 ORDERING Plaintiff is ORDERED to Show Cause in a writing to be filed no later than 8/4/2014, why sanctions should not be impo sed against her and/or her counsel under Rule 16(f) of the FRCP for failure to file a timely status report. Scheduling Conference RESCHEDULED to 11/24/2014 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.; A joint status report s hall be filed no later than 14 days prior to the status conference; Further, Plaintiff is notified under Rule 4(m) of the FRCP that failure to serve each Defendant with process within the 120 day period prescribed in that Rule may result in any unser ved defendant and/or the action's dismissal; to avoid dismissal, on or before 9/26/2014, Plaintiff shall file proof of service for each defendant or a sufficient explanation why service was not completed within Rule 4(m)'s prescribed service period. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

CYNTHIA HOPSON,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:14-cv-01223-GEB-KJN

Plaintiff,
v.
WATERWAY CREATIONS, INC.,
CUSTOMERS FIRST ENTERPRISES,
INC., MANGELOS BROTHERS,
INC., dba BARNWOOD
RESTAURANT, and JOSEPH
MANGELOS, dba BARNWOOD
RESTAURANT, and DOES 1-10,
inclusive,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE; FED. R.
CIV. P. 4(M) NOTICE

Defendants.

17
18

The

May

20,

2014,

Order

Setting

Status

(Pretrial

19

Scheduling) Conference scheduled a status conference in this case

20

on August 4, 2014, and required the parties to file a joint

21

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

22

scheduling conference. The May 20, 2014 Order further required

23

that a status report be filed regardless of whether a joint

24

report could be procured. No status report was filed as ordered.

25

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

26

in a writing to be filed no later than August 4, 2014, why

27

sanctions should not be imposed against her and/or her counsel

28

under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for
1

1

failure to file a timely status report. The written response

2

shall also state whether Plaintiff or her counsel is at fault,

3

and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC.1 If a hearing is

4

requested, it will be held on November 24, 2014, at 9:00 a.m.,

5

just prior to the status conference, which is rescheduled to that

6

date and time. A joint status report shall be filed no later than

7

fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference.

8
9

Further, Plaintiff is notified under Rule 4(m) of the
Federal

Rules

of

Civil

Procedure

that

failure

to

serve

each

10

Defendant with process within the 120 day period prescribed in

11

that

12

action’s dismissal. To avoid dismissal, on or before September

13

26,

14

defendant

15

completed within Rule 4(m)’s prescribed service period.

Rule

2014,

16
17

may

result

Plaintiff
or

a

in

shall

sufficient

any

unserved

file

proof

explanation

defendant

of
why

and/or

service
service

for
was

the

each
not

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 23, 2014

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