Kodwavi v. Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources Inc et al

Filing 90

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: STRIKING AND SANCTIONS; ORDER VACATING HEARING AND TRIAL DATES AND DEADLINES Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 12/21/2012 09:01 AM. Show Cause Response due by 12/14/2012. Court VACATES the pending Motion hearing set 12/11/2012. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 12/6/12. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 GUL M. KODWAVI, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 Northern District of California ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: STRIKING AND SANCTIONS; ORDER VACATING HEARING AND TRIAL DATES AND DEADLINES vs. 12 United States District Court Case No.: 11-cv-2710-YGR INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, INC., et al., 13 Defendants. 14 TO PLAINTIFF GUL M. KODWAVI AND HIS COUNSEL OF RECORD: 15 The above-named Plaintiff’s counsel, Curtis G. Oler, is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE 16 why he should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with this Court’s Standing Order in Civil 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Cases (“Standing Order”) regarding summary judgment responsive statements and why Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts In Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment or Alternatively, Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 66, hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Additional Facts”) and Response to Defendant’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts (Dkt No. 68, hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Responsive Statement”) should not be stricken. Plaintiff’s Additional Facts and Plaintiff’s Responsive Statement both fail to comply with this Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases (“Standing Order”), paragraph 9(c). The Standing Order requires that a party responding to a motion for summary judgment to include “a separate, short, and concise statement of any additional material facts as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be tried” in the same document as the response to the moving separate statement. The Standing Order further requires that an opposing separate statement shall be “no more than five (5) additional pages beyond the number of pages in the opening statement.” Most significantly, the 1 Standing Order requires that counsel include an attestation as part of their separate statements stating 2 that the evidence cited fairly and accurately supports the facts as asserted. 3 Here, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Responsive Statement and filed a separate additional 28-page 4 document listing additional material facts. Plaintiff’s counsel failed to attest to the veracity of the 5 facts asserted in either document. 6 In addition to the plain requirements of the Standing Order, paragraph 9(c), Plaintiff’s 7 counsel was previously cautioned by this Court to adhere to these exact same requirements in a 8 separate action. (See Mendoza v. Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc., No. 4:11-cv-00666-YGR, 9 ECF No. 51 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2012).) 10 A hearing on this Order to Show Cause shall be held on Friday, December 21, 2012, on the Northern District of California Court’s 9:01 a.m. calendar, in the Federal Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California. 12 United States District Court 11 Plaintiff’s counsel must file a written response to this Order to Show Cause no later than Friday, 13 December 14, 2012. If the Court is satisfied with Plaintiff’s counsel’s response, it will consider 14 taking the Order to Show Cause hearing off calendar. 15 In addition, the Court hereby VACATES the pending hearing on Defendant’s Motion for 16 Summary Judgment, currently set for Tuesday, December 11, 2012, and VACATES the trial date, 17 and all trial-related hearings and deadlines, until further notice from the Court. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: December 6, 2012 19 _______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?