United States of America v. Real Property and Improvements Located at 2366 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, California

Filing 41

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND SCHEDULING ORDER. Certificate of Interested Entities due by 9/5/2013. Show Cause Response due by 9/6/2013. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 10/29/2013 at 9:30 AM. Further Case Management Conference set for 10/29/2013 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on August 22, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 13-cv-02027-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
SCHEDULING ORDER

9

11

REAL PROPERTY AND
IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 2366
SAN PABLO AVENUE, BERKELEY,
CALIFORNIA,

12

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

13
14

Civil Local Rule 3-16 (a) requires that parties other than governmental entities file

15

certificates of interested entities or persons “[s]o that Judges of this Court may evaluate any need

16

for disqualification or recusal.” Subsection (b) provides that “[u]pon making a first appearance in

17

any proceeding in this Court, a party must file”such a certificate. Civil L.R. 3-16(b) (emphasis

18

added). “The Certification must disclose any persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships,

19

corporations (including parent corporations), or other entities other than the parties themselves

20

known by the party to have either: (i) a financial interest (of any kind) in the subject matter in

21

controversy or in a party to the proceeding; or (ii) any other kind of interest that could be

22

substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” Id. 3-16(b)(1) (citing 28 U.S.C. §

23

455(d). “If a party has no disclosure to make pursuant to subparagraph (b)(1), that party must

24

make a certification stating that no such interest is known other than that of the named parties to

25

the action.” Civil L.R. 3-16(b)(3). The purpose of the rule is to enable “Judges of this Court [to]

26

evaluate any need for disqualification or recusal early in the course of any case.” Civil L.R. 3-

27

16(a); see also In re Cement Antitrust Litig. (MDL No. 296), 688 F.2d 1297, 1313 (9th Cir. 1982)

28

(the purpose of the recusal and disqualification rules is “to promote public confidence in the

1

impartiality of the judiciary”),aff'd sub nom. Arizona v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Arizona, 459

2

U.S. 1191, 103 S. Ct. 1173, 75 L. Ed. 2d 425 (1983) and supplemented sub nom. State of Ariz. v.

3

U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Ariz., 709 F.2d 521 (9th Cir. 1983).

4

Claimant Berkely Patients Group, Inc. (“BPG”) filed a claim asserting an interest in the

5

Defendant property and contesting forfeiture on June 4, 2013. ECF No. 12. To date, BPG has not

6

filed a ceritificate of interested entities or persons.

7

When a party violates local rules or a court order, courts may impose a number of different

8

sanctions. For example, the Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly upheld the imposition of the sanction of

9

dismissal for failure to comply with pretrial procedures mandated by local rules and court orders.”

10

Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)(citing cases).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1) “expressly provides for imposing

12

sanctions on disobedient or recalcitrant parties, their attorneys, or both.” Adv. Cttee. Notes, 1983

13

Amendments, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). Such sanctions may be imposed sua sponte or upon motion, if

14

a party or its attorney fails to comply with a pretrial order. Civil Local Rule 1-4 provides: “Failure

15

by counsel or a party to comply with any duly promulgated local rule or any Federal Rule may be

16

a ground for imposition of any authorized sanction.”

17

Violation of a local rule, as BPG has done here, constitutes violation of a pretrial order

18

subject to the sanctions discussed above, particularly where there is “a close connection between

19

the sanctionable conduct and the need to preserve the integrity of the court docket or the sanctity

20

of the federal rules.” Zambrano v. City of Tustin, 885 F.2d 1473, 1480 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing

21

Frazier v. Heebe, 482 U.S. 641 (1987)).

22

For all the foregoing reasons, BPG is hereby ORDERED to file by September 5, 2103 a

23

Certificate of Interested Entities that complies with Rule 3-16. If it does not comply with this

24

order, then BPG is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by September 6, 2013 why the

25

Court should not impose sanctions against it, including monetary sanctions, dismissal, or any other

26

authorized sanction as set forth above.

27
28

Any party wishing to provide additional authority to the Court regarding BPG’s response
to the Order to Show Cause may do so by September 19, 2013. BPG may file a reply in support of
2

1

its response to this Order by October 3, 2013. The Court will hold a hearing on this Order to

2

Show Cause on October 29, 2013, at 9:30 p.m. in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Ave.,

3

San Francisco, California.

4
5
6
7
8
9

The Court will also conduct a case management conference concurrently with the hearing
on October 29, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. All parties are ordered to appear at that time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 22, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

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
3