From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bermudez v. Officemax Does 1-20

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 10, 2006
2:05-cv-2245-GEB-KJM (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2006)

Opinion

2:05-cv-2245-GEB-KJM.

February 10, 2006


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE


The November 7, 2005, Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference scheduled a status conference in this case for February 21, 2006, and required the parties to file a joint status report no later than fourteen days prior to the scheduling conference. The Order further required that a status report be filed regardless of whether a joint report could be procured. The joint status report filed by the parties was submitted on February 9, 2006, which was untimely.

As the Order states:

The failure of one or more of the parties to participate in the preparation of the Joint Status Report does not excuse the other parties from their obligation to timely file a status report in accordance with this Order. In the event a party fails to participate as ordered, the party timely submitting the status report shall include a declaration explaining why it was unable to obtain the cooperation of the other party or parties.

Order filed November 7, 2005, at 2 n. 1.

Counsel is Ordered to Show Cause (OSC) no later than 4:00 p.m. on March 6, 2006, why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against counsel and/or the parties for the failure to file a timely status report, as ordered. The written response shall state whether the parties or counsel is at fault and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC. If a hearing is requested, it will be held on March 20, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., just prior to the status conference, which is rescheduled to that date.

"If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the impact of sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the clients, that is where the impact of the sanction should be lodged." Matter of Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1442 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1014 (1985). Sometimes the faults of attorneys, and their consequences, are visited upon clients. In re Hill, 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Bermudez v. Officemax Does 1-20

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 10, 2006
2:05-cv-2245-GEB-KJM (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2006)
Case details for

Bermudez v. Officemax Does 1-20

Case Details

Full title:EDDY BERMUDEZ, Plaintiff, v. OFFICEMAX and DOES 1-20, Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 10, 2006

Citations

2:05-cv-2245-GEB-KJM (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2006)