Johnson v. Patel

Filing 56

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/9/2018 IT IS SO ORDERED 55 Because the court ordered Welch to show cause why his privileges should not be suspended until he paid the ordered sanction and he has now paid that sanction, the order to show cause is DISCHARGED; a Status Conference is set for 12/13/2018 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SCOTT JOHNSON, 11 No. 2:14-cv-2052-KJM DB Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 MIKE PATEL, 14 ORDER Defendant. 15 On August 13, 2018, the court ordered defense counsel Michael D. Welch to show 16 17 cause within seven (7) days why his privilege to practice in the Eastern District of California 18 should not be suspended until he pays the $250 in monetary sanctions he was ordered to pay on 19 April 4, 2018. ECF No. 55. The court issued the April 4, 2018 sanctions in response to Welch’s 20 failure to respond to the court’s prior order to show cause, also issued for Welch’s failure to 21 comply with the court’s order. ECF Nos. 54, 52. On August 21, 2018, one day after the court’s 22 prescribed deadline, Welch paid the $250 but provided no substantive response to the court’s 23 order to show cause and did not otherwise attempt to explain his repeated noncompliance with 24 court orders. 25 This marks the second time in this action that Welch has refused to respond to an 26 order to show cause, then declined to pay sanctions on the schedule ordered, then provided no 27 substantive response to an order to show cause why his privilege to practice in this court should 28 not be suspended, but instead simply and belatedly paid the monetary sanction. See ECF No. 44 1 1 (Sept. 19, 2017 order to show cause for Welch’s non-response to court order); ECF No. 45 (Oct. 2 3, 2017 order sanctioning Welch $250 for failing to respond to order to show cause); ECF No. 47 3 (Nov. 21, 2017 order to show cause why Welch should not be suspended from practicing in the 4 Eastern District until the $250 sanction is paid); ECF No. 48 (Dec. 8, 2017 order discharging 5 order to show cause after Welch paid the $250 sanction but provided no explanation for his 6 behavior). 7 Because the court ordered Welch to show cause why his privileges should not be 8 suspended until he paid the ordered sanction and he has now paid that sanction, the order to show 9 cause is DISCHARGED. The court now provides Welch with notice, however, that each time 10 this court issues an order to show cause why it should not sanction him for noncompliance with 11 court orders, the monetary sanctions will increase by $250. In other words, the court’s next order 12 for monetary sanctions against Welch, if any, will be $500. 13 In addition, this court has notified Welch on numerous occasions that it will 14 consider a proper motion to withdraw as counsel. See ECF No. 43 (identifying deficiencies in 15 Welch’s motion to withdraw and ordering him to file a supplemental brief that complies with this 16 court’s Local Rules within seven days); ECF No. 46 (noting Welch had not corrected the 17 deficiency identified, despite having three months to do so, and denying the motion to withdraw 18 as insufficiently supported); ECF No. 48 (reminding Welch to comply with Local Rules in filing 19 any future motion to withdraw). The court again reminds Welch it will entertain a properly 20 supported motion to withdraw. Unless and until Welch withdraws, however, he is required to 21 comply with this court’s orders. 22 Additionally, the court SETS a December 13, 2018 status conference at 2:30 p.m. 23 in Courtroom 3 to ensure the litigation in this matter is proceeding. The parties are ORDERED to 24 file a joint status report seven days prior to the status conference. 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 9, 2018. 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 2

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?