Karnazes v. County of San Mateo et al

Filing 113

ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; IMPOSING SANCTIONS. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 26, 2010. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2010)

Karnazes v. County of San Mateo et al

Doc. 113

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Before the Court is plaintiff's response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, issued August 6, 2010, as to why sanctions should not be imposed for plaintiff's failure to appear as ordered at the Case Management Conference scheduled for August 6, 2010. Also before the Court is the declaration of defendants' counsel, setting forth the costs incurred by defendants in connection with counsel's preparation for and attendance at the Conference as ordered. Having read and considered plaintiff's response, the Court finds plaintiff has failed to show good cause for her failure to appear. In particular, the Court notes that the instant failure to appear at a regularly scheduled case management conference represents the second such failure on plaintiff's part (see Order to Show Cause, filed Aug. 6, 2009) and constitutes a pattern of non-appearance and non-compliance manifested throughout the course of the above-titled litigation (see, e.g., Orders filed Feb. 17, 2010, Apr. 6, 2010, v. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and DEBORAH TITONE, Defendants. / United States District Court ELIZABETH KARNAZES, Plaintiff, No. C 09-0767 MMC ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; IMPOSING SANCTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

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

July 2, 2010). Plaintiff's explanation, in each instance, is similar: difficulty in dealing with electronic filing procedures and keeping track of court dates. Irrespective of whether plaintiff's most recent failure to appear was intentional, however, the Court finds such lack of compliance is disruptive of the orderly conduct of court proceedings, particularly given the proximity of the trial date, and that sanctions are appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). Further, having read and considered the declaration of defendants' counsel, the Court finds plaintiff's failure to appear has resulted in defendants' having incurred unnecessary costs, specifically, the attorney's fees attributable to defendants' counsel's traveling to and appearing at the August 6 Conference, which fees the Court finds to be reasonable both as to the time spent and the hourly rate.1 Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to pay to defendants sanctions in the sum of $500.2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 26, 2010

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

The Court likewise finds reasonable the fees attributable to counsel's preparation of the Case Management Statement, but does not find such work was rendered unnecessary by plaintiff's failure to appear. The Court will defer rescheduling the Case Management Conference pending resolution of defendants' motion for terminating sanctions, noticed for hearing before Magistrate Judge James. 2
2

1