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)

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