Johnson v. Robinson Oil Corporation

Filing 75

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF FAILED TO FILE NOTICES OF PAYMENT FOR SANCTIONS. Re: Dkt. Nos. 63 , 70 . Plaintiff's counsel is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the notices of payment were not timely filed, and to file the notices, by 10/116/2018. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 10/12/2018. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

SCOTT JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

v.
ROBINSON OIL CORPORATION,
Defendant.

Case No.17-cv-03659-NC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO FILE
NOTICES OF PAYMENT FOR
SANCTIONS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 63, 70

15
16

On September 19, 2018 this Court awarded sanctions against Plaintiff Scott Johnson

17

in the amount of $2,250 (Defendant’s expenses of 5 hours at $450 per hour). See Dkt. No.

18

63. On September 25, 2018 this Court again awarded sanctions against Plaintiff Scott

19

Johnson in the amount of $675 (Defendant’s expenses of 1.5 hours at $450 per hour). See

20

Dkt. No. 70. Plaintiff’s counsel Center For Disability Access was ordered in each instance

21

to file a notice of the payment in ECF within 14 days of the order. Those deadlines were

22

October 3, 2018, and October 9, 2018, respectively. Plaintiff’s counsel has filed no notices

23

of payment. Therefore, Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the

24

notices of payment were not timely filed, and to file the notices, by October 16, 2018.

25

In its September 25 order, this Court stated: “Plaintiff’s counsel are admonished for

26

their repeated late filings and disclosures in this case. Plaintiff and his counsel are warned

27

that further violations may result in a more severe sanction under Rule 37.” See Dkt. No.

28

70. Rule 37 allows for the Court to impose sanctions which include the following:
Case No.17-cv-03659-NC

1

(i)

2

(ii)

3

(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)

4
5
6

Directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be
taken as established for the purposes of the action, as the prevailing party
claims;
prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims
or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence;
striking pleadings in whole or in part
staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;
rending default judgment against the disobedient party; or
treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to
submit to a physical or mental examination.

7

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)–(vii).

8

This Court may impose more severe sanction(s) on Plaintiff and his counsel if further

9

violations, such as repeated late filings, occur in this case. Plaintiff’s counsel are again

10

admonished for their failure to diligently comply with deadlines and orders in this case.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: October 12, 2018

15

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.:17-cv-03659-NC

2