Santiago v. Whole House Building Supply et al

Filing 55

ORDER re 51 First MOTION to Dismiss AND FOR SANCTIONS filed by Paul Gardener, Hearing set for 9/16/2011 02:00 PM. Response due by 9/9/2011. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on September 8, 2011. (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 SAN JOSE DIVISION 9 JOSE SANTIAGO, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 Plaintiff, v. PAUL GARDENER, dba, WHOLE HOUSE BUILDING SUPPLY, 13 14 Defendant. ___________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: C 10-2526 PSG ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS (Re: Docket No. 51) 15 On September 6, 2011, Adam Wang (“Wang”), counsel for Plaintiff Jose Santiago 16 (“Santiago”) and Katherine Clark (“Clark”), counsel for Defendant Paul Gardener, dba Whole 17 House Building Supply (“Gardener”), appeared for a final pretrial conference. Unfortunately, the 18 court was unable to proceed with pretrial matters as scheduled. The reason is that the parties failed 19 20 to file in a timely manner all materials necessary for a productive conference,1 including trial briefs, proposed voir dire and verdict forms, a joint pretrial statement, and motions in limine.2 In particular, 21 Wang failed to comply with the court’s standing order to meet and confer with Gardener and Clark, 22 failed to meet multiple pretrial filing deadlines, and ultimately filed his pretrial materials late and up 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The court recognizes that Gardener, acting at the time in pro se, made multiple efforts to meet and confer with Wang, and ultimately filed a separate pretrial conference statement, trial exhibits, and proposed jury voir dire. See Docket Nos. 44, 45. 2 See Standing Order for Civil Practice in Cases Assigned for all Purposes to Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal (December 2010). ORDER, page 1 1 to the last minute.3 2 In view of Wang’s intransigence in working with Gardener to meet deadlines and apparent 3 lack of good faith in preparing for trial, Gardener filed a motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions 4 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) and 37(b)(2)(C). The court has taken Gardener’s motion under 5 submission and will allow Santiago and Wang until Friday, September 9, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. to file a 6 written response. The court will hear oral argument on the motion to dismiss at hearing on Tuesday, 7 September 16, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. Until resolution of the motion to dismiss, the court will stay 8 Gardener’s deadlines to submit remaining pretrial materials. The trial date remains September 19, 9 2011. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 Dated: September 8, 2011 12 PAUL S. GREWAL United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Based on the court’s standing order and the pretrial conference calendar date of September 6, 2011, Wang should have met and conferred with Gardener by August 16, 2011, filed a trial brief and motions in limine by August 29, and together with Gardener, filed a joint pretrial conference statement by August 29, 2011. Instead, Wang filed his trial brief on September 6, 2011 minutes before the pretrial conference time, a motion in limine on September 2, 2011, and a separate pretrial conference statement on August 29, 2011. See Docket Nos. 42-48, 53. ORDER, page 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?