Johnson v. Castro, et al
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 4/14/15 ORDERING each party to show cause in writing no later than 4/20/15, why sanctions should not be imposed against the party and/or the party's counsel under Rule 16(f) of the Fe deral Rules of Procedure for failure to file a timely status report. The written responses shall also state whether the party or the party's counsel is at fault, and whether a hearing is requested on the Order to Show Cause. If a hearing is re quested, it will be held on 5/4/15 at 9:00 a.m., just prior to the status conference, which is rescheduled to that date and time. A joint status report shall be filed no later than 14 days prior to the status conference. Show Cause Hearing and Status Conference set for 5/4/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. (Meuleman, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL
Claudia R. Delgado-Ramirez;
J Issac Castro; Elvira
Castro; and Does 1-10,
scheduled a status conference in this case on April 20, 2015, and
required the parties to file a joint status report no later than
fourteen (14) days prior to the scheduling conference. No status
report was filed as ordered.
Therefore, each party is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”)
in a writing to be filed no later than April 20, 2015, 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. The written
counsel is at fault, and whether a hearing is requested on the
OSC.1 If a hearing is requested, it will be held on May 4, 2015,
“If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the impact of
at 9:00 a.m., just prior to the status conference, which is
rescheduled to that date and time. A joint status report shall be
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 14, 2015
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).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?