Kideckel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 39

ORDER Re Show Cause Hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 1/6/21.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mme)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

Case No.: 20-cv-00681-DMS (JLB)

BRENT KIDECKEL,
Plaintiff,

14
15

v.

16

ORDER RE SHOW CAUSE
HEARING

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

17

[ECF Nos. 31, 38]

Defendant.

18
19
20

Plaintiff has repeatedly violated the Court’s orders and Civil Chambers Rules

21

regarding e-mail communications with the Court despite the Court warning Plaintiff on

22

multiple occasions that e-mails to chambers are not permitted except as authorized by court

23

order or by the Court’s local or chambers rules. (See ECF Nos. 23; 26; 27.) On

24

December 15, 2020, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause for why sanctions should

25

not issue for Plaintiff’s repeated violations and set a telephonic show cause hearing for

26

January 5, 2021. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff did not file any response to the Court’s Order to

27

Show Cause and failed to appear at the telephonic show cause hearing. (ECF No. 38.)

28

Instead, Plaintiff sent yet another unauthorized e-mail to the Court’s e-file address
1
20-cv-00681-DMS (JLB)

1

attaching a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 35; 36.)1 Accordingly, Plaintiff is in violation of

2

the Court’s December 15, 2020 Order.

3

The Court previously sanctioned Plaintiff $75 for his failure to appear at the

4

December 1, 2020 Mandatory Settlement Conference scheduled in this action. (ECF No.

5

33.) Plaintiff must pay the monetary sanction on or before January 15, 2021 or face

6

additional sanctions. (Id. at 3.) The Court subsequently reset the Mandatory Settlement

7

Conference for January 14, 2021. (ECF No. 34.) In its order resetting the Mandatory

8

Settlement Conference, the Court put Plaintiff on notice that any failure to appear at the

9

conference or comply with any aspect of the Court’s order resetting the conference will

10

result in the recommendation of terminating sanctions. (Id. at 1.)

11

Given the multitude of outstanding issues before the Court, the Court holds in

12

abeyance at this time its determination of the appropriate sanction for Plaintiff’s violation

13

of the Court’s December 15, 2020 Order.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6, 2021

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Although not required to do so, the Court forwarded the motion to dismiss to
the Clerk’s Office for filing. (ECF No. 35.) As the Court advised Plaintiff in its minute
order forwarding such motion: “Any future pleadings must be filed with the Clerk’s Office,
in person, by mail, or using CM/ECF, in accordance with court rules and procedures. Any
questions about how to file by mail should be directed to the Clerk’s Office.” (Id.)
2
20-cv-00681-DMS (JLB)