Reynoso et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 159

ORDER -- The court held a settlement conference today with counsel only in anticipation of the in-person settlement conference (including parties) set for January 10, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. Defendants counsel appeared in person as the court ordered. See ECF Nos. 155, 156, 157. Plaintiffs counsel Keith Oliver did not call chambers as the court ordered him to. See ECF No. 157 (providing dial-in instructions and number). The courts orders about the settlement conference are filed as orders atta ched to the electronic docket and as text entries that can be read on smartphones or computers without logging onto ECF (and paying any attendant costs). When Mr. Oliver failed to call in, the court called him. His number on the docket sheet is 415 -512-7353, but that number has been disconnected, which the court verified. The state bar website lists a new number of 415-613-2919. See http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/257837 (accessed on January 7, 2014). The courts call to that number went directly to voice mail with the identifier "Keith Oliver" and an automated message that the mailbox was full. Defendants counsel also tried to ensure Mr. Olivers participation and compliance with the courts orders. See ECF No. 158. They called him at the old number, found the new number, emailed him at his two email addresses (including the official email address listed with the court and reflected on the docket sheet), faxed him at his two fax numbers (receiving a conf irmation from one number), left phone messages at the 415-613-2919 number, and attempted a hand delivery to his office. See id. They received no response from Mr. Oliver.The courts order for an in-person settlement conference remains in effect for Friday, January 10, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. All counsel and all clients are to appear in-person for the settlement conference. Mr. Oliver is directed to comply with all of the courts previous orders, including ensuring his clients in-person appearance. Plaintiffs and Mr. Oliver are warned that a continued failure to comply with the courts orders or appear at hearings (including the settlement conferences) may be grounds for monetary or other appropriate sanctions, including terminating sanctions. By no later than noon on January 9, 2014, Mr. Oliver must inform Plaintiffs of the sanctions that this continued conduct risks, including possible monetary sanctions and, ultimately, a case-dispositive sanction that would result in the dismissal of Plaintiffs case for failure to prosecute. The court will issue this order as an order attached to the electronic docket sheet and as a text entry. The court will send a copy of the text entry (and the attached filed order) to Mr. Olivers email on the docket sheet ([e-mail]) and his email address listed on the bars website ([e-mail]).. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 1/7/2014. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
MALAQUIAS REYNOSO, ET AL.,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 10-0984 MEJ (LB)

PLAINTIFFS,
ORDER

13
14

v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, ET AL.,

15
16

Defendants.
___________________________________/

17

The court held a settlement conference today with counsel only in anticipation of the in-person

18

settlement conference (including parties) set for January 10, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. Defendants’ counsel

19

appeared in person as the court ordered. See ECF Nos. 155, 156, 157. Plaintiffs’ counsel Keith

20

Oliver did not call chambers as the court ordered him to. See ECF No. 157 (providing dial-in

21

instructions and number). The court’s orders about the settlement conference are filed as orders

22

attached to the electronic docket and as text entries that can be read on smartphones or computers

23

without logging onto ECF (and paying any attendant costs).

24

When Mr. Oliver failed to call in, the court called him. His number on the docket sheet is 415-

25

512-7353, but that number has been disconnected, which the court verified. The state bar website

26

lists a new number of 415-613-2919. See http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/257837

27

(accessed on January 7, 2014). The court’s call to that number went directly to voice mail with the

28

identifier "Keith Oliver" and an automated message that the mailbox was full.

ORDER (C10-0984 MEJ (LB))

1

Defendants’ counsel also tried to ensure Mr. Oliver’s participation and compliance with the

2

court’s orders. See ECF No. 158. They called him at the old number, found the new number,

3

emailed him at his two email addresses (including the official email address listed with the court and

4

reflected on the docket sheet), faxed him at his two fax numbers (receiving a confirmation from one

5

number), left phone messages at the 415-613-2919 number, and attempted a hand delivery to his

6

office. See id. They received no response from Mr. Oliver.

7

The court’s order for an in-person settlement conference remains in effect for Friday, January 10,

Mr. Oliver is directed to comply with all of the court’s previous orders, including ensuring his

10

clients’ in-person appearance. Plaintiffs and Mr. Oliver are warned that a continued failure to

11

comply with the court’s orders or appear at hearings (including the settlement conferences) may be

12
For the Northern District of California

2014 at 11:00 a.m. All counsel and all clients are to appear in-person for the settlement conference.

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

grounds for monetary or other appropriate sanctions, including terminating sanctions.

13

By no later than noon on January 9, 2014, Mr. Oliver must inform Plaintiffs of the sanctions that

14

this continued conduct risks, including possible monetary sanctions and, ultimately, a case-

15

dispositive sanction that would result in the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ case for failure to prosecute.1

16

The court will issue this order as an order attached to the electronic docket sheet and as a text

17

entry. The court will send a copy of the text entry (and the attached filed order) to Mr. Oliver’s

18

email on the docket sheet ([e-mail]) and his email address listed on the bar’s website

19

([e-mail]).

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2014
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b). See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); McKeever v. Block, 932
F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). “[F]ailure to prosecute diligently is sufficient by itself to justify a
dismissal.” Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). “But only unreasonable
delay will support a dismissal for lack of prosecution.” Nealey v. Transportacion Maritima
Mexicana, S.A., 662 F.2d 1275, 1280 (9th Cir. 1980) (emphasis added)
ORDER (C10-0984 MEJ (LB))

2