Koussa v. Navajo Rug Cleaning Co. Inc.

Filing 17

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 5/9/2017 02:00 PM. Show Cause Response from plaintiff due by 5/8/2017. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/05/2017. (COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PAMELA KOUSSA,
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

10

NAVAJO RUG CLEANING CO. INC., et
al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-05108-WHO
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
SANCTIONS AND DENYING REQUEST
TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE

Defendants.

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

At the prior scheduled hearing on plaintiff’s motion to strike, I ordered that the plaintiff
provide Mr. Rowe with a written explanation of what it contends must done at the site of his
business by January 20, 2017 and that the parties independently file a Status Report on May 2,
2017 that addressed whether any issues remain regarding compliance with the ADA, with plaintiff
attaching a copy of its notice to Mr. Rowe as described above and its billing records in this case,
including the cost of its expert. Dkt. No. 13. Plaintiff has not filed the Status Report.
In addition, in several cases filed in my court plaintiff’s law firm has ignored the
requirements of General Order 56, the entire purpose of which is help parties resolve ADA cases
quickly and as inexpensively as possible while providing complete relief. See Finger v. Mariposa
Baking Co., No. 14-cv-03813-WHO, Dkt. No. 16 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2016) (ordering counsel to
comply with General Order 56); Johnson v. JDF Holdings, LLC, No. 16-cv-04291-WHO, Dkt.
No. 22 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2017) (ordering the parties to comply with General Order 56 and
warning plaintiff’s counsel that further disregard of the Order may result in sanctions); Arroyo v.
NETAJ, LLC, No. 16-cv-06294-WHO (parties were required to file notice of need for mediation
under General Order 56 last month and have failed to do so).

1

Mr. Rowe has filed a Status Report that indicates it is impracticable for defendant to

2

provide a conforming parking space and describes the accommodation the defendant has made.

3

He also indicates that he has attempted to communicate with plaintiff’s counsel but that counsel

4

has ignored or refused to speak with Mr. Rowe.

5

Plaintiff states that she “has not had sufficient opportunity to evaluate these claims fully.”

6

Dkt. No. 16, p.5. When this case was filed, as a matter of law plaintiff’s counsel made

7

representations with respect to the merit of the claims and the purpose of the litigation. Fed. R.

8

Civ. P. 11(b). This case has been pending since September 6, 2016.

9

Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why she and her counsel should not be sanctioned for
their wholesale noncompliance with the Orders of this court and for violation of their obligations

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). No later than May 8, 2017, plaintiff shall file the

12

tardy Status Report ordered on January 11, 2017. Plaintiff shall address substantively Mr. Rowe’s

13

information with respect to the impracticability of accommodating plaintiff other than in the way

14

he has proposed. And plaintiff’s counsel shall show cause why she was not in violation of Rule 11

15

when the complaint was signed and filed in this matter.

16

Plaintiff’s counsel has also requested to appear at the hearing on May 9, 2017 by

17

telephone. That request is DENIED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated: May 5, 2017

20
21
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2