Les Fields/C.C.H.I. Insurance Services v. Hines et al.,

Filing 163

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 10/3/2017. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 LES FIELDS/C.C.H.I. INSURANCE SERVICES, Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-03728-MEJ ORDER DISMISSING CASE 9 v. 10 11 STUART M HINES, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 12 13 On August 3, 2017, this Court ordered Plaintiff Les Fields to show cause why the case 14 should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute after he failed to meet the deadline for filing 15 pretrial materials. See Second OSC, Dkt. No. 152. As described more fully in that OSC, the 16 parties failed to file their pretrial materials (including pretrial statements, witness and exhibit lists, 17 separate trial briefs, joint voir dire statement and questions, joint jury instructions, and joint 18 proposed verdict forms) by the July 26, 2017 deadline set by the Court in its Case Management 19 Scheduling Order. Id. Defendants notified the Court that Plaintiff had failed to come prepared to 20 meaningfully confer with Defendants regarding witnesses, exhibits, and other topics required by 21 the Court in its Case Management Order, and did not participate in the conference in good faith; 22 they requested an extension of time to prepare for trial. See Mot. for Extension, Dkt. No. 150. For 23 his part, Plaintiff did not inform the Court of any problems or explain why he missed this 24 deadline; he also did not respond to Defendants’ filing or request for an extension. See Dkt. As a 25 result, the Court vacated all pretrial and trial deadlines, including the October 16, 2017 trial date. 26 See OSC. 27 This was not the first time Plaintiff failed to meet court deadlines, prosecute his case, or 28 follow Court orders. See, e.g., Order to File Separate Statements, Dkt. No. 66 (failure to file 2 separate statement in support of motion for summary judgment); First OSC, Dkt. No. 75 (failure to 3 prosecute and comply with court deadlines; plaintiff failed to file oppositions to motions for 4 summary judgment after receiving two-week extension to do so); Order re Pl.’s Resp. to OSC, 5 Dkt. No. 79 (imposing financial sanctions on Plaintiff for his failure to file separate statement after 6 being ordered to do so and failure to file oppositions by extended deadline); Order re Summ. J. at 7 3-6, Dkt. No. 92 (identifying Plaintiff’s violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary 8 judgment standards, and Local Rule 7-3(a)); Order for Sanctions, Dkt. No. 94 (ordering Plaintiff 9 to pay $7,164.50 in attorneys’ fees and costs Defendants incurred in drafting responses to Court’s 10 OSC and replies to summary judgment motions); Order re Pretrial Matters, Dkt. No. 125 (failure 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 to contact settlement judge to schedule further settlement conference, as ordered); Order re 12 Michael Nealy MIL, Dkt. No. 126 (Plaintiff failed to oppose motion in limine on merits and 13 instead incorrectly and inexplicably argued Defendant failed to file memorandum in support of 14 motion when Defendant had done so, as evidenced on the ECF docket); Order Striking Kenneally 15 Decl., Dkt. No. 129 (striking Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration because it did not sufficiently 16 respond to the Court’s prior Order and constituted improper attempt to respond to merits of MIL). 17 In response to the Court’s latest OSC, Counsel for Plaintiff acknowledged the Court 18 “[w]ithout a doubt has the power to involuntarily dismiss the case for failure to obey pretrial 19 orders” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f). Response, Dkt. No. 153. The Court 20 continued the OSC and ordered the parties to attend one more settlement conference on September 21 18, 2017. Dkt. No. 156. The case did not settle. 22 Given Plaintiff’s repeated failures to obey pretrial orders, complete and unexcused failure 23 to timely submit pretrial materials ordered by the Court in its Case Management Order, the waste 24 of time and resources those failures have imposed on both the Court and Defendants, and the fact 25 lesser sanctions have not rectified Plaintiff’s conduct, the Court now DISMISSES Plaintiff’s 26 27 28 2 1 2 remaining claims against all Defendants WITH PREJUDICE. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 5 6 Dated: October 3, 2017 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 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 3

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?