Von Haar v. City of Mountain View et al

Filing 43

ORDER to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 9/1/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Mailing)(lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

JODY LYNN VON HAAR,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, TONY
VIERYA, aka JOSE VIEYRA, TY ZEMLOK,
FERNANDO MALDONADO, Does 1-100,

15

Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 10-CV-02995-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE
IMPOSED

On April 4, 2011 the State Bar Court of California approved a stipulated disposition and

18

recommended to the Supreme Court that Attorney William B. Look, Plaintiff’s attorney of record

19

in this matter, be suspended from the practice of law for 120 days. Leed Decl. Ex. A, June 20,

20

2011, ECF No. 36. Shortly thereafter, on April 14, 2011, defense counsel contacted Attorney Look

21

in order to prepare a joint case management statement for the upcoming initial case management

22

conference. On the same day, Attorney Look responded to defense counsel: “I may substitute out

23

of this case since I anticipate I will be out of state for several months. Thus, I may defer a response

24

to the last minute to allow new counsel to handle this.” Leed Decl. Ex. B, June 20, 2011, ECF No.

25

36.

26

On May 4, 2011, the Court held an initial case management conference at which both

27

Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear. The Court subsequently issued a Case

28

Management Order that set forth deadlines for the parties to meet and confer and to complete
1
Case No.: 10-CV-02995-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED

1

certain discovery obligations. See Minute Entry and Case Management Order, May 4, 2011, ECF

2

No. 30. In its Order, the Court advised Plaintiff that if she failed to comply with the court-ordered

3

deadlines, the Court could issue an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for

4

failure to prosecute or why Plaintiff’s counsel and/or Plaintiff should not be sanctioned for failure

5

to comply with a Court order.

6

On May 26, 2011, Defendants filed a notice advising the Court that Plaintiff had failed to
comply with the Court’s Case Management Order regarding several discovery obligations. See

8

Defendants’ Report of Plaintiff’s Non-Compliance With Court Order, ECF No. 32. Plaintiff filed

9

no response to Defendants’ notice. On June 6, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 33. Plaintiff’s counsel, William

11

B. Look, filed a response in which he explained that counsel and Plaintiff lacked funds to prosecute

12

the case, and that Plaintiff had been seeking new counsel. ECF No. 34. In response, Defendants

13

filed a statement in which they informed the Court that Plaintiff’s counsel was suspended from the

14

practice of law effective April 4, 2011 for a period of 120 days. Defendants contended that

15

Plaintiff’s counsel had therefore violated various rules by engaging in the unauthorized practice of

16

law and failing to notify the Court of his suspension. ECF No. 35-36. In reply, Attorney Look

17

acknowledged the suspension, but claimed that it had not yet taken effect. ECF No. 37.

18

On July 2, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to file a motion to withdraw by July

19

15, 2011, as it appeared that he was no longer financially able to represent Plaintiff. ECF No. 38.

20

Attorney Look has not filed a motion to withdraw as counsel.

21

A further case management conference was held on August 31, 2011. Based on the

22

representations made by Attorney Look at the conference, it appears that his suspension is to begin

23

on September 10, 2011, and that he must withdraw as counsel in all of his current pending cases,

24

including this one, before that date. At the case management conference, Attorney Look was

25

ordered to contact Jody Von Haar and explain to her his status with the State Bar, and that the

26
27
28
2
Case No.: 10-CV-02995-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED

1

Court has issued an order to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to

2

prosecute.1

3
4

The Court hereby issues this order to show cause why Attorney William B. Look should not
be sanctioned for the following reasons:

5

1. Look’s failure to disclose to opposing counsel that his impending suspension by the State
Bar was the true reason for his potential withdrawal from the case.
2. Look’s failure to appear at the May 4, 2011 case management conference.
3. Look’s failure to comply with the discovery deadlines imposed by the Court’s May 4, 2011
case management order, including: (a) failure to provide Plaintiff’s dates of availability for
deposition by May 11, 2011; (b) failure to respond to Defendants’ request to meet and
confer by May 13, 2011; (c) failure to produce initial disclosures by May 18, 2011; (d)
failure to exchange documents designated in the initial disclosures by May 25, 2011; (e)
failure to respond to Defendants’ draft protective order by May 18, 2011.
4. Look’s failure to comply with the Court’s July 2, 2011 order to file a motion to withdraw as
counsel by July 15, 2011.

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Because Attorney Look’s suspension is to begin in 10 days, the Court has set an expedited

12

briefing schedule on the matter. Defense counsel shall file a declaration of fees and costs incurred

13

as a result of Attorney Look’s potentially sanctionable conduct by September 2, 2011. Attorney

14

Look shall file a written response to the order to show cause, as well as defense counsel’s

15

declaration, by September 6, 2011 at noon. A hearing on the matter is set for September 8, 2011 at

16

1:30, in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: September 1, 2011

20

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The order to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute is
being filed concurrently with this order to show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed
on Plaintiff’s attorney William B. Look.
3
Case No.: 10-CV-02995-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED