Hopson v. Big Boy Markets, Inc. et al

Filing 16

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 4/14/2015. Plaintiff is ordered to SHOW CAUSE, in writing and no later than 4/20/2015, why sanctions should not be imposed against her and/or her counsel for failure to file a timely Stat us Report. If a Hearing is requested, it will held on 10/26/2015 at 9:00 AM. Further, although Clerk has entered Default against each named defendant, and plaintiff's counsel declared in his 3/13/2015 15 Response to 3/4/2015 OSC that he " w[ould] promptly file a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment," no such motion has been filed. Therefore, plaintiff shall file a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment before Magistrate Judge no later than 5/1/2015. If plaintiff fails to timely fil e the Motion, plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE in writing no later than 5/4/2015, why this action should not be dismissed for failure of prosecution. The Status Conference scheduled for hearing on 4/20/2015 is CONTINUED to 9:00 AM on 10/26/2015. Plaintiff shall file a Status Report no later than 14 days prior to Status Conference. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CYNTHIA HOPSON,

8

11

2:14-cv-02274-GEB-AC

Plaintiff,

9
10

No.

v.
BIG BOY MARKETS, INC.; ARTHUR
TOY AND PATRICIA TOY TRUST;
and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

12

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE

Defendants.

13
The

14

March

4,

2015,

Order

to

Show

Cause

(“OSC”)

15

scheduled a status conference in this case on April 20, 2015, and

16

required the parties to file a joint status report no later than

17

fourteen (14) days prior to the scheduling conference. No status

18

report was filed as ordered.

19

Therefore, Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause1 in a

20

writing to be filed no later than April 20, 2015, why sanctions

21

should not be imposed against her and/or her counsel under Rule

22

16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to file

23

a timely status report. The written response shall also state

24

whether Plaintiff or her counsel is at fault, and whether a

25
26
27
28

1

This is the third OSC that has issued as a result of Plaintiff failing
to timely file a status report. (See ECF Nos. 6, 8.) In response to each of
the earlier OSCs, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a response to the OSC but failed
to timely file a status report in connection with the corresponding continued
status conference. Plaintiff has yet to file a status report in this action.

1

1

hearing is requested on the OSC.2 If a hearing is requested, it

2

will be held on October 26, 2015, at 9:00 a.m.

3

Further, although the Clerk has entered default against

4

each named defendant, and Plaintiff’s counsel declared in his

5

March 13, 2015 response to the March 4, 2015 OSC that he “w[ould]

6

promptly file a motion for entry of default judgment,” no such

7

motion has been filed. (Resp. to OSC &9, ECF No. 15.) Therefore,

8

Plaintiff

9

before

shall

the

file

a

Magistrate

motion
Judge

for

no

entry

later

of

than

default
May

1,

judgment
2015.

If

10

Plaintiff fails to timely file the motion, Plaintiff shall show

11

cause in writing no later than May 4, 2015, why this action

12

should not be dismissed for failure of prosecution. This action

13

may

14

Procedure 41(b) if Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this

15

Order.

be

dismissed

with

prejudice

under

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

16

Also, the status conference scheduled for hearing on

17

April 20, 2015, is continued to commence at 9:00 a.m. on October

18

26, 2015. Plaintiff shall file a status report no later than

19

fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference, in which she

20

explains the status of the default proceedings.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 14, 2015

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

“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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3