Johnson v. Ruiz et al

Filing 46

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/23/2016 ORDERING that the 43 Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SCOTT JOHNSON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-1663 WBS AC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

LEONCIO NATERAS RUIZ, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On September 22, 2016, the court ordered defendant’s counsel, Michael David Welch, to

18

show cause why he should not be sanctioned for failing to produce his clients, Robert Devita and

19

Leoncio Nateras Ruiz, at their respective judgment debtor examinations, for failing to notify

20

plaintiff or the court that his clients would not be attending, and for failing to provide any

21

explanation for his clients’ failure to attend. ECF No. 43. On September 28, 2016, Mr. Welch

22

timely submitted a declaration in response to the OSC. ECF No. 44.

23

Mr. Welch avers that he no longer represents these clients, and that “[t]he Proofs of

24

Service on the docket in connection with the debtor examinations show that only Defendants

25

were served or attempted to be served in the State of New Mexico.” In fact, every document filed

26

in this case after Mr. Welch first appeared for his clients, has been served on him electronically

27

through the court’s CM/ECF system. This includes every document filed in this case relating to

28

the judgment debtor examinations. In addition, two of those documents were served on Mr.
1

1

Welch by mail. See ECF Nos. 31-1, 39-1. This should have alerted Mr. Welch that, as far as the

2

court knew, he still represented his clients.

3

Mr. Welch avers that his representation of his clients ended when judgments were entered

4

against them, and he offers details of his representation agreement and fees. However, the court

5

is generally not aware of the private agreements between attorneys who appear in this court and

6

their clients. When Mr. Welch continued to be served with documents in this case after the

7

judgments were entered, and continued to be listed as counsel of record for those defendants, it

8

was his responsibility to notify the court that he no longer represented the defendants.

9
10
11

Nevertheless, Mr. Welch has timely explained why he did not produce defendants at their
judgment debtor examinations.
Accordingly, the Order To Show Cause relating to Mr. Welch (ECF No. 43 ¶ 2), is

12

DISCHARGED.

13

DATED: October 23, 2016

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2