Marshall v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

Filing 36

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Why Monetary Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed; and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice. Attorney Moataz Hamza is ordered to show cause why monetary sanctions should not be imposed on him. He is ordered file a response by 3/25/2019. O ne motion seeking an award of costs (Docket no. 24 ) is still pending before Magistrate Judge Lopez. This order does not dispose of that issue. All other requests are denied as moot and this action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to mail copies of this order to Mr. Hamza at the address in the docket, and also at 750 B Street, Suite 2350, San Diego, CA 92101. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 3/8/2019. (Copies served via U.S. Mail to Attorney Moataz Hamza at address on docket and in this order.) (jdt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CINTHIA F. MARSHALL,

Case No.: 17cv1818-LAB (JMA)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,

15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
MONETARY SANCTIONS
SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED;
AND

Defendant.

16

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE

17
18

The Court on January 7 ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action

19

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and also why she should not be

20

sanctioned. If she failed to show cause as to her failure to prosecute, the order

21

cautioned, the action could be dismissed without prejudice. But if she failed to

22

show cause for disobeying the Court’s earlier order, she was cautioned that she

23

could be sanctioned. (Docket no. 26). The Court’s earlier order had required her

24

to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, which

25

sought dismissal with prejudice. The Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motion

26

in part, dismissing the complaint without prejudice.

27

Plaintiff has not obeyed the January 7 order. If she had showed cause why

28

Defendant’s unopposed motion should not be granted and why she should not be
1
17cv1818-LAB (JMA)

1

sanctioned but had failed to show cause for her failure to prosecute, this action

2

would have been dismissed without prejudice. But because she has failed to show

3

cause for her multiple acts of disobedience to the Court’s orders, the Court now

4

RECONSIDERS its partial grant of Defendant’s motion for judgment on the

5

pleadings, and GRANTS the motion in its entirety, both because Plaintiff has

6

consented to its being granted, see Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c), and as a sanction.

7

See Civil Local Rule 83.1(a).

8

Civil Local Rule 16.1(b) covers counsel’s duty of diligence, which it appears

9

Plaintiff’s attorney, Moataz Sayed Hamza, Esq., has neglected. In addition, all

10

counsel are expected to act with the highest standards of professionalism. See

11

Civil Local Rule 83.4. This includes, among other things, to avoid wasting judicial

12

resources by failing to respond when directed to do so by the Court, thereby

13

requiring the Court to take extraordinary steps to manage the litigation. This is

14

particularly true when the Court has specifically ordered counsel to do something.

15

The Court’s orders requiring the filing of responses concerning dismissal were not

16

conditional and counsel was not free to disregard them if he was no longer

17

intending to prosecute the case. At the very least, he should have filed a notice

18

saying Plaintiff did not oppose dismissal with prejudice. And more importantly, the

19

Court’s order to show cause why Plaintiff should not be sanctioned was not

20

optional.

21

Attorney Moataz Hamza is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why

22

monetary sanctions should not be imposed on him for disobeying the Court’s

23

orders. See Civil Local Rule 83.1(a). He is ORDERED file a response, not longer

24

than five pages, by March 25, 2019. If he fails to obey this order, he may be

25

subject to further sanctions or contempt proceedings.

26

At least one motion seeking an award of costs (Docket no. 24) is still pending

27

before Magistrate Judge Lopez. This order does not dispose of that issue, and

28

does not divest Judge Lopez of authority over it. Nor does this order dispose of
2
17cv1818-LAB (JMA)

1

any other requests for sanctions or costs. But all other requests are DENIED AS

2

MOOT and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk is directed to mail copies of this order to Mr. Hamza at the address

3
4

in the docket, and also at 750 B Street, Suite 2350, San Diego, CA 92101. 1

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 8, 2019

8
9

Hon. Larry Alan Burns
Chief United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The address in the docket is the same as Mr. Hamza’s address on the
California Bar website. However, a website for Hamza law, using Mr. Hamza’s
phone number, lists the firm’s address as being at 750 B Street.
3
17cv1818-LAB (JMA)