Martinez et al v. Flagstar Bank, FSB
Filing
45
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/14/2017 SANCTIONING counsel for each party in the amount of $250.00, payable to the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days; ORDERING that counsel not pass this cost on to their clients. (cc: Financial Department) (Michel, G.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
EDGAR MARTINEZ, ERIKA
MARTINEZ, and DELFINA PRADO,
Plaintiffs,
13
ORDER
v.
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-01934-KJM-CKD
FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive,
16
Defendants.
17
18
After the parties in this action missed a series of deadlines and both failed to
19
20
appear at a status conference before the court on October 13, 2016, the court ordered plaintiffs’
21
counsel to show cause why the case should not be dismissed and counsel for both parties to show
22
cause why they should not each be sanctioned in the amount of $250.00. Order November 8,
23
2016, ECF No. 38. Plaintiffs responded to the order to show cause on November 11, 2016. ECF
24
No. 39. Defendants responded on November 22, 2016. ECF No. 40. Both responses were
25
timely.
26
Based on plaintiffs’ response, the court declines to dismiss the case at this
27
juncture. Plaintiffs argue they are proceeding with prosecution of the case, Pls.’ Resp. 3, ECF
28
No. 39, and plaintiffs’ counsel declares that plaintiffs submitted discovery requests to opposing
1
1
counsel on November 9, 2016. Snyder Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 39-1. Although the court notes this
2
discovery activity occurred after the court’s order to show cause, the court finds dismissal for
3
failure to prosecute at this juncture would not be appropriate.
4
However, based on both parties’ responses, the court finds monetary sanctions
5
appropriate here. Counsel for both parties explain they attempted to make arrangements for
6
telephonic appearance within 24 hours of the scheduled status conference. Snyder Decl. ¶ 5, ECF
7
No. 39-1; Reynolds Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 40-1. However, as a matter of course, the court does not
8
permit telephonic appearances for the parties’ initial status conference. Had the parties attempted
9
to make arrangements sooner, they would have been able to adjust their travel plans to attend the
10
conference in person as required. Especially in light of the parties’ missed deadlines to submit a
11
joint status report in anticipation of the initial scheduling conference they failed to attend, as well
12
as the court’s prior admonition to “heed the court’s deadlines with greater care going forward,”
13
ECF No. 34, the court finds monetary sanctions are appropriate here.
14
Accordingly, counsel for each party are sanctioned in the amount of $250.00,
15
payable to the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days of the date this order is served. Counsel
16
shall not pass this cost on to their clients.
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 14, 2017
19
20
21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
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?