Stinson v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/28/2017 ORDERING defense counsel Neeru Jindal and Jordan Yu to SHOW CAUSE why plaintiff's 28 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order should not be granted as an unopposed motion. Show Cause Response due by 10/2/2017 at 4:00 pm. (Donati, J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:16-cv-01903 MCE GGH
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING,
In this matter involving a home foreclosure, plaintiff was proceeding pro se until
September 25, 2017 when the district court signed an order approving the substitution of attorney
Kristy A. Hernandez of the Hernandez Law Group as attorney of record for the remainder of the
case. Attorney Hernandez learned, at or about the same time, that contrary to what her client had
been told, the home at issue here was scheduled for a foreclosure sale on October 6, 2017, as she
states in a Declaration submitted in support of an application for a Temporary Restraining Order
[“TRO:]. ECF No. 28-2 ¶¶¶4, 5. Ms. Hernandez then recounts numerous efforts she made by
telephone and email seeking to consult with defense counsel of record, Neeru Jindal, regarding
willingness to suspend the sale pending resolution of the case or, alternatively, when she would
be available for a hearing on a TRO should the request for postponement of the sale be rejected.
Id. at ¶ 6. Getting no response from Ms. Jidal, on September 26, plaintiff’s counsel called and
emailed the other counsel of record for defendant, Jordan Yu, offering the same alternatives. Id.
at ¶ 8. Again she received no response through September 27, 2017, the date upon which she
executed her declaration. Id. at ¶ 9. As a consequence, counsel filed the pending Ex Parte
Application for a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the noticed sale of the property that is
the subject of this litigation.
The American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct are followed and
enforced in this district court with regard to matters not covered by the California State Bar Rules
of Professional Responsibility. See Local Rule 180(e). Rule 3.2 imposes upon attorneys a duty
to “make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client. This
Rule cannot be seen other than to have been abrogated by defense attorneys who refuse to
respond to communications from opposing counsel resulting in the need for emergency motions
that burden both opposing counsel and the court.
In light of the history disclosed above IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Defense Counsel Neeru Jindal and Jordan Yu shall show cause why plaintiff’s
pending Application for a Temporary Restraining Order should not be granted as an unopposed
Why other and further sanctions should not be imposed for defense counsels’
failure to assist in the expedition of this litigation in an orderly manner;
Defense counsel shall respond to this Order to Show Cause no later than 4:00 p.m.
on Monday, October 2, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 28, 2017
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?