York, et al v. American Savings Network Inc., et al
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 6/11/15: Plaintiffs are Ordered to Show Cause in a writing to be filed no later than June 19, 2015, why sanctions should not be imposed against them and/or their counsel under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to file a timely status report. Status Conference set for 8/31/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.. (Kaminski, H)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PHYLLIS L. YORK, and JAMES B.
AMERICAN SAVINGS NETWORK,
INC. also known as AMERICAN
SAVINGS NETWORK, LLC; ANTHONY
DIEHL; and ROGER S. MORAN;
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE; FED. R.
CIV. P. 4(M) NOTICE
Scheduling) Conference scheduled a status conference in this case
on June 22, 2015, and required the parties to file a joint status
report no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the scheduling
conference. The March 12, 2015 Order further required a status
report be filed regardless of whether a joint report could be
procured. No status report was filed as ordered.
Therefore, Plaintiffs are Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”)
sanctions should not be imposed against them and/or their counsel
under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for
failure to file a timely status report. The written response
fault, and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC.1 If a
hearing is requested, it will be held on August 31, 2015, at 9:00
a.m., just prior to the status conference, which is rescheduled
to that date and time. A status report shall be filed no later
than fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference.
Further, Plaintiffs are notified under Rule 4(m) of the
defendant with process within the 120 day period prescribed in
that Rule may result in the unserved defendant(s) and/or this
action being dismissed. To avoid dismissal, on or before July 13,
2015, Plaintiffs shall file proof of service for each defendant
or a sufficient explanation why service was not completed within
Rule 4(m)’s prescribed service period.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 11, 2015
“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).
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?