Johnson v. Fedorenko et al

Filing 11

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/7/14. Plaintiff shall Show Cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file a timely status report by 11/14/2014. Scheduling Conference reset for 4/20/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. Joint status report due no later than 14 days prior to conference. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

Scott Johnson,,

8
9
10
11
12
13

No.

2:14-cv-01848-GEB-CKD

Plaintiff,
v.
Balbir S. Ojla, Mohan K.
Gill, Ashwani K. Karma,
Indra D. Sharma, and Does 110,

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

Defendants.

14
15

The

August

6,

2014

Order

Setting

Status

(Pretrial

16

Scheduling) Conference scheduled a status conference in this case

17

on November 10, 2014, and required the parties to file a joint

18

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

19

scheduling conference. The August 6, 2014 Order further required

20

a status report be filed regardless of whether a joint report

21

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

22

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

23

in a writing to be filed no later than November 14, 2014, why

24

sanctions should not be imposed against him and/or his counsel

25

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

26

failure to file a timely status report. The written response

27

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

28
1

1

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

2

requested, it will be held on April 20, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., just

3

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

4

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

5

fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference.

6

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

7

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that failure to serve Defendants

8

Balbir S. Ojla, Mohan K. Gill, Ashwani K. Karma, and Indra D.

9

Sharma with process within the 120 day period prescribed in that

10

Rule may result in the unserved defendants and/or this case being

11

dismissed.

12

Plaintiff shall file proof of service for these defendants or a

13

sufficient explanation why service was not completed within Rule

14

4(m)’s prescribed service period.

15
16

To

avoid

dismissal,

on

or

before

March

6,

2015,

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 7, 2014

17
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