Johnson v. Wang et al

Filing 39

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE directing Defendant Donald P. Wang to show cause why the court should not enter default against him and issue sanctions of $2,000.00. Show Cause Response re: default due by 7/25/2018 at 12:00 p.m.; Show Cause Response re: Sanctions due 8/2/2018, at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

GEORGE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

11

CASE NO. C16-1738JLR
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
12
13

DONALD P. WANG, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

On July 23, 2018, the court held a pretrial conference in this matter, and in

16

personam Defendant Donald P. Wang, who is proceeding pro se, did not appear. (See

17

7/23/18 Min. Entry (Dkt. # 38).) Counsel for Plaintiff George Johnson represented that

18

based on their conversations with Mr. Wang, Mr. Wang was aware of the conference and

19

his need to attend. Moreover, the court’s orders clearly notified Mr. Wang of the

20

conference date and the potential consequences for failing to appear. (See Sched. Order

21

(Dkt. # 23); 7/11/18 Order (Dkt. # 37) (citing Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 11(c)); Dkt.

22

(6/27/18 entry)); Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 11(c) (stating that the court may consider

ORDER - 1

1

a failure to “appear at [the] pretrial conference . . . an abandonment or failure to prosecute

2

or defend diligently, and judgment may be entered against that party”). Because of his

3

failure to appear, the court ORDERS Mr. Wang to SHOW CAUSE why the court should

4

not enter default against him and issue sanctions of $2,000.00.

5

Regarding the entry of default, Mr. Wang must respond no later than Wednesday,

6

July 25, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. If he does not respond or sufficiently demonstrate good

7

cause for his failure to appear, the court will enter default against him. See Ringgold

8

Corp. v. Worrall, 880 F.2d 1138, 1141-42 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Local Rules W.D.

9

Wash. LCR 11(c).

10

Regarding sanctions, Mr. Wang must respond no later than Thursday, August 2,

11

2018, at 12:00 p.m. A federal court’s inherent authority allows the court to “fashion an

12

appropriate sanction for conduct [that] abuses the judicial process.” Goodyear Tire &

13

Rubber Co. v. Haeger, --- U.S. ---, 137 S. Ct. 1178, 1186 (2017); see also Fink v. Gomez,

14

239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Three primary sources of authority enable courts to

15

sanction parties or their lawyers for improper conduct: (1) Federal Rule of Civil

16

Procedure 11, which applies to signed writings filed with the court, (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1927,

17

which is aimed at penalizing conduct that unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies the

18

proceedings, and (3) the court’s inherent power.”). Because he failed to appear despite

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

ORDER - 2

1

repeated notifications, Mr. Wang must show cause why the court should not issue

2

sanctions in the amount of $2,000.00.

3

Dated this 23rd day of July, 2018.

4
5

A

6

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3