Frazier et al v. City of Rancho Cordova et al

Filing 19

ORDER AND ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/3/16: By no later than June 2, 2016, plaintiffs shall show cause in writing why they should not be sanctioned for their failures to file a status report and provide ti mely notification of their current addresses. By no later than June 2, 2016, defendant City of Rancho Cordova shall show cause in writing why it should not be sanctioned for its failure to file a status report. Scheduling Conference CONTINUED to 6/30/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. The parties shall file a status report by no later than June 23, 2016. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTIAN J. FRAZIER, et al.,

12
13
14

No. 2:15-cv-0872-TLN-KJN PS

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER AND

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, et al.,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

15
16

Defendants.

17
18

On March 7, 2016, the assigned district judge referred this action to the undersigned for

19

all purposes exclusive of the pretrial conference and trial pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) in

20

light of plaintiffs’ counsel’s withdrawal of representation, leaving all plaintiffs proceeding in this

21

action in propria persona. (ECF No. 17.) On April 1, 2016, in light of the district judge’s

22

referral and the procedural posture of this action, the undersigned issued an order setting a status

23

(pre-trial scheduling) conference in this matter for May 12, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. (ECF No. 18.)

24

That order directed the parties to file a status report addressing specific topics no later than

25

fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference. (Id. at 1-2.) The order also specifically

26

cautioned that “[f]ailure to obey the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or

27

an order of this court, may result in dismissal of the action or a judgment of default, monetary

28

sanctions, and/or any other appropriate sanctions. Although the court liberally construes the
1

1

pleadings and filings of pro se litigants, they are required to abide by all deadlines and procedural

2

requirements.” (Id. at 2-3.) No status report was filed by any party by the filing deadline set by

3

the April 1, 2016 order.
The undersigned acknowledges that plaintiffs’ counsel recently withdrew, leaving both

4
5

plaintiffs to proceed pro se in this matter, and that plaintiffs did not receive copies of the court’s

6

April 1, 2016 order that were served on them by mail as those copies were returned to the court as

7

undeliverable. However, it is plaintiffs’ duty, even as pro se litigants, to keep the court informed

8

of their current address(es), and service of the court’s orders at the address on record for both

9

plaintiffs was effective absent the filing of a notice of change of address. In relevant part, Local

10

Rule 182(f) provides: “Each appearing attorney and pro se party is under a continuing duty to

11

notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address or telephone number of the attorney

12

or the pro se party. Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address of the attorney

13

or pro se party shall be fully effective.” Accordingly, plaintiffs shall show cause in writing why

14

they should not be sanctioned for their failures to file a status report in compliance with the

15

court’s April 1, 2016 order and provide timely notification of their current address(es) in

16

compliance with Local Rule 182(f).
Notwithstanding plaintiffs’ failures, defendant City of Rancho Cordova has also failed to

17
18

file a status report in compliance with the April 1, 2016 order.1 While the April 1, 2016 order

19

directed the parties to file a joint status report and the court is cognizant that defendant may have

20

encountered some difficulties in communicating with plaintiffs in light of the withdrawal of

21

plaintiffs’ counsel, defendant was still required to file a status report. If defendant was unable to

22

confer with plaintiffs prior to the filing deadline despite making good faith efforts to do so, it

23

should have filed a status report detailing those efforts in addition to addressing the topics set

24

forth in the April 1, 2016 order. However, to date, defendant has not filed anything in response to

25
1

26
27
28

As stated in the prior order, the undersigned is aware that the parties previously filed a joint
status report in this action on June 19, 2015, that addressed many of the same topics outlined in
the April 1, 2016 order. However, in light of the fact that many of the representations in that
prior joint statement are now likely outdated, the undersigned finds an updated filing to be
necessary.
2

1

that order. Accordingly, defendant shall show cause in writing why it should not be sanctioned

2

for its failure to file a status report in compliance with the court’s April 1, 2016 order. In

3

addition, defendant shall inform the court whether it’s counsel has been in contact with plaintiffs

4

in the time since plaintiffs’ counsel withdrew from representation. Furthermore, defendant shall

5

inform the court whether it has updated contact information for plaintiffs, including plaintiffs’

6

known addresses and phone numbers. If it does have such information, it shall also serve a copy

7

of this order and the April 1, 2016 order on plaintiffs by mail at the addresses known to defendant

8

and attach to its response to this order to show cause proof of such service.
In light of the parties’ failures to file a status report and the apparent issues surrounding

9
10

plaintiffs’ contact information, the status (pre-trial scheduling) conference currently set for May

11

12, 2016, is continued to June 30, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall file a status report

12

addressing the topics set forth in the court’s April 1, 2016 order (ECF No. 18) by no later than

13

June 23, 2016.2

14

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1. By no later than June 2, 2016, plaintiffs shall show cause in writing why they should

16

not be sanctioned for their failures to file a status report in compliance with the court’s

17

April 1, 2016 order (ECF No. 18) and provide timely notification of their current

18

addresses in compliance with Local Rule 182(f).

19

2. By no later than June 2, 2016, defendant City of Rancho Cordova shall show cause in

20

writing why it should not be sanctioned for its failure to file a status report in

21

compliance with the court’s April 1, 2016 order (ECF No. 18). In its response,

22

defendant shall inform the court whether it’s counsel has been in contact with

23

plaintiffs in the time since plaintiffs’ counsel withdrew from representation and

24

whether defendant has updated contact information for plaintiffs, including plaintiffs’

25
2

26
27
28

This status report shall preferably be filed jointly after the parties have had an opportunity to
confer regarding the topics set forth in the April 1, 2016 order. However, if defendant is unable
to contact plaintiffs after making good faith efforts to do so, it may file its own status report by
the above deadline that also includes a statement detailing the good faith efforts defendant
undertook in attempting to contact plaintiffs.
3

1

known addresses and phone numbers. If defendant has such updated information, it

2

shall also serve a copy of this order and the April 1, 2016 order on plaintiffs by mail at

3

the addresses known to defendant and attach to its response to this order to show cause

4

proof of such service.

5
6
7
8
9
10

3. The May 12, 2016 status (pre-trial scheduling) conference before the undersigned is
CONTINUED to June 30, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.
4. The parties shall file a status report addressing the topics set forth in the court’s April
1, 2016 order (ECF No. 18) by no later than June 23, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 3, 2016

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4