Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01216/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01216-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TASHA SCOTT,

NO. CIV. S-06-1216 LKK/PAN (JFM)

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

SOLANO COUNTY HEALTH AND

SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT;

SOLANO COUNTY; PATRICK DUTERTE;

and TRISH EDIE,

Defendants.

 /

In an order filed June 30, 2006, the court ordered plaintiff’s

counsel to show cause in writing within ten (10) days why sanctions

should not issue for failure to file a timely opposition in

accordance with L.R. 78-230. The court continued the hearing on

the motion to dismiss filed by defendant to August 7, 2006 and

ordered plaintiff’s counsel to file and serve the opposition no

later than July 24, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. 

////

Case 2:06-cv-01216-LKK -EFB Document 19 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Plaintiff’s counsel has not responded to the court’s Order to

Show Cause. Plaintiff’s counsel has also failed to file and serve

the opposition brief as directed by the court’s June 30, 2006

order. The court’s docket reflects that plaintiff’s counsel was

not admitted to practice in the Eastern District of California

until July 25, 2006, at which point, a document titled “Notice of

Motion and Motion to Remand Or Transfer to Proper Venue” was filed.

The entirety of that document states:

Please Take Notice That On August 7, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.

or soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the

Courtroom of the Honorable Judge Lawrence K. Karlton, of

the above entitled Court, Plaintiff Tasha Scott will and

hereby does move for an order remanding this action to

State Court as the Removal of the action is defective.

The complaint in this action was filed in Alameda

Superior Court and removal is only proper in the

Northern District. Moreover, More over [sic] the

Complaint is based primarily on State Court Claims and

can be Amended so as to proceed solely on State Court

claims.

The court, having considered plaintiff’s counsel’s repeated

failure to file an opposition brief in the above-captioned matter,

ORDERS as follows:

1. Counsel for plaintiff is SANCTIONED in the amount of

three-hundred dollars ($300.00). This sum shall be paid to the

Clerk of the Court no later than thirty (30) days from the

effective date of this order. Counsel shall file an affidavit

accompanying the payment of this sanction which states that it is

paid personally by counsel, out of personal funds, and is not and

will not be billed, directly or indirectly, to the client or in any

way made the responsibility of the client as attorneys' fees or

Case 2:06-cv-01216-LKK -EFB Document 19 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 Plaintiff’s counsel is admonished that failure to file an

opposition brief which responds to defendant’s motion to dismiss,

and which cites proper legal authority, may result in more

stringent sanctions, dismissal of the above-captioned matter,

and/or referral to the California State Bar. See L.R. 11-110

(“failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local rules

or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition

by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent

power of the Court”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)(“Defendant may move for

dismissal for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply

with federal rules of civil procedure or any order of court);

Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)

(District Courts have the inherent power to control their dockets

and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions

including, where appropriate, dismissal of a case.”); Ghazali v.

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)(dismissal with prejudice

for failure to file an opposition brief to a motion to dismiss and

non-compliance with local rules).

2

 This “motion” was defectively noticed. On July 25, 2006,

plaintiff’s counsel requested that the “Motion to Remand or

Transfer to Proper Venue” be heard on the court’s August 7, 2006

3

costs. 

2. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to SERVE a copy of this

order on her client within ten (10) days of this order, and to file

an affidavit with the court which states that she has provided such

copy as directed by the court.

3. Hearing on the motion to dismiss currently pending before

the court is CONTINUED to August 28, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. on the

Court’s Law and Motion calendar. The Status Conference currently

scheduled for August 7, 2006 is also CONTINUED to August 28, 2006

at 10:00 a.m.

4. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to file and serve an

opposition brief no later than August 11, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.1

5. The court shall disregard plaintiff’s “Notice of Motion

and Motion to Remand or Transfer for Proper Venue” (Document 10).2

Case 2:06-cv-01216-LKK -EFB Document 19 Filed 08/03/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Law and Motion calendar. Local Rule 78-230 states, however, that

“a matter shall be set for hearing on the motion calendar of the

Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom the action has been assigned or

before whom the motion is to be heard, not less than twenty-eight

(28) days after personal service and filing of the motion or not

less than thirty-one (31) days after mailed or electronic service

and filing of the motion.” The Local Rules make clear that

“[m]otions defectively noticed shall be filed, but not set for

hearing . . . and that the moving party shall file and serve a new

notice of motion setting forth a proper time and date.” See L.R.

78-230, 5-135, 6-136(a). Although L.R. 78-230(e) allows parties

to file “related or counter-motions” on the date prescribed for the

filing of the opposition, it is clear to the court that these

motions are not “related to the general subject matter” of the

motion to dismiss pending on the court’s docket. 

Finally, the court notes that in filing this “Motion to Remand

or Transfer to Proper Venue,” plaintiff’s counsel has failed to

comply with the L.R. 78-230(b) which requires that the moving party

file with the court “a notice of motion, motion, accompanying

briefs, affidavits, if appropriate, and copies of all documentary

evidence that the moving party intends to submit in support of the

motion.” On July 25, 2006, plaintiff’s counsel filed a document

containing one paragraph which is completely void of any argument,

legal authority, or documentary evidence in support of such motion.

On August 1, 2006, plaintiff filed “Points and Authorities” in

support of the previous motion. This document, however, contains

only several more paragraphs and still fails to provide the

relevant legal authority and sufficient argument in support of such

motion.

4

6. Plaintiff’s request to appear telephonically at oral

argument on the motion, contained within her status report, is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 2, 2006

Case 2:06-cv-01216-LKK -EFB Document 19 Filed 08/03/06 Page 4 of 4