Choyce v. SF Bay Area Independent Media Center et al

Filing 5

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONED FOR FAILING TO FOLLOW COURT'S PRETRIAL ORDER; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 8/28/2013 at 2:00 PM. Case Management Statement due by 8/14/2013. Proof of Service due by 8/23/2013. Initial Case Management Conference set for 8/28/2013 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 29, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DIONNE CHOYCE,

Case No. 13-cv-01842-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
SF BAY AREA INDEPENDENT MEDIA
CENTER, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT BE
SANCTIONED FOR FAILING TO
FOLLOW COURT’S PRETRIAL
ORDER; CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

12
13
14

Plaintiff having failed to file a Case Management Statement by July 24, 2013 as required

15

by the Court’s order dated April 23, 2013, ECF No. 3, the Case Management Conference currently

16

scheduled for July 31, 2013 is CONTINUED to August 28, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. A Joint Case

17

Management Statement must be filed not later than August 14, 2013.

18

At the same date and time, Plaintiff Dionne Choyce and his attorney are ORDERED TO

19

SHOW CAUSE why monetary sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to file a Case

20

Management Statement by July 24, 2013 as ordered. Failure of counsel or of a party to follow a

21

pretrial order is grounds for the imposition of sanctions, including monetary sanctions, dismissal,

22

or other appropriate action. See Fed R. Civ. Pro. 16(f)(1)(C); Lucas Auto. Eng’g, Inc. v.

23

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 275 F.3d 762, 769 (9th Cir. 2001); Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895

24

F.2d 1267, 1269-70 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Zambrano v. City of Tustin, 885 F.2d 1473, 1476-81

25

(9th Cir. 1989) (violation of local rules also sanctionable pursuant to court’s inherent and statutory

26

authority).

27

The Court also notes that Plaintiff has yet to file with the Court any Proof of Service that

28

he has served Defendants in this action, as required by Rule 4(l)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil

1

Procedure. If Plaintiff has not done so by August 23, he is also ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE

2

why the complaint should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m). That matter will be considered

3

at the same time and place as the aforementioned hearing.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 29, 2013

6
7
8

______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2