Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06271/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06271-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

CARL ALEXANDER WESCOTT, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

ERIC REISNER, 

 Defendant. 

Case No: C 17-06271 SBA 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED PURSUANT TO 

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE 41(B)

Plaintiff Carl Wescott (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint for breach 

of contract and other related causes of action against Defendant Eric Reisner (“Defendant”) 

on October 30, 2017. Dkt. 1.1 Defendant, also proceeding pro se, filed an Answer on 

January 29, 2018. Dkt. 13. 

On or about August 16, 2018, Judge Edward M. Chen—to whom the action was 

then assigned—ordered the parties to exchange initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 26 within 30 days and to participate in a settlement conference within 90 

days. Dkt. 50. The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore for 

settlement, and a settlement conference was scheduled for November 16, 2018, at 11:00 

a.m. Dkt. 55. Magistrate Judge Westmore’s settlement conference order required, among 

other things, that each party prepare and submit a settlement conference statement at least 

10 calendar days prior to the conference (i.e., no later than November 6, 2018). Id. at 3. 

 1 The Complaint also named Kerry Condon as a defendant; however, she was 

dismissed from the action on June 1, 2018. See Dkt. 44. 

Case 4:17-cv-06271-SBA Document 102 Filed 08/05/19 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

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 

27 

28 

On November 15, 2018, Magistrate Judge Westmore issued an order terminating the 

settlement conference. Dkt. 59. Magistrate Judge Westmore stated that Plaintiff had failed 

to submit a settlement conference statement. Id. at 1. Additionally, when the Court 

attempted to contact Plaintiff by telephone, which it did at least ten times, the Court was 

directed to a message indicating that the user’s mailbox was full. Id. Because Plaintiff had 

not submitted a settlement conference statement as ordered, and because he had provided a 

telephone number that “effectively render[ed] him unreachable,” Magistrate Judge 

Westmore canceled the settlement conference. Id. at 2. She also ordered Plaintiff to 

provide an updated telephone number where he could be reached and to contact the Court 

to reschedule the settlement conference. Id. It appears Plaintiff made no subsequent 

attempt to schedule another conference. 

On November 27, 2018, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte—to whom the 

action had been reassigned—issued a Case Management and Pretrial Order pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, setting a pretrial schedule. Dkt. 62. Among other 

things, the Order provides a fact discovery cutoff of May 14, 2019, and specifically 

instructs the parties to supplement and/or correct their Rule 26 disclosures on an ongoing 

basis and at least 28 days before the fact discovery cutoff date. Id. ¶¶ 2.a. & d. The Order 

also sets a deadline to file dispositive motions by July 2, 2019, with a pretrial conference on 

September 24, 2019, and trial set to begin on October 15, 2019. Id. ¶¶ 1.a., 3 & 5.a. 

On December 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed his first motion for default judgment. Dkt. 64. 

Magistrate Judge Laporte denied the motion on January 23, 2019. Dkt. 69. Shortly 

thereafter, on February 26, 2019, Magistrate Judge Laporte held a further case management 

conference. Dkt. 76. At that time, Defendant stated that he had yet to receive from 

Plaintiff a copy of the final, signed contract underlying the dispute. Id. Magistrate Judge 

Laporte ordered Plaintiff to provide “all documents, especially those related to breach of 

contract” to Defendant by March 15, 2019. Id. That deadline was also memorialized in a 

written order. Dkt. 77. Magistrate Judge Laporte also re-referred the parties to Magistrate 

Judge Westmore to conduct a settlement conference. Dkt. 76. 

Case 4:17-cv-06271-SBA Document 102 Filed 08/05/19 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

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 

27 

28 

The following day, February 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed his second motion for default 

judgment. Dkt. 80. Defendant filed a response to the motion on April 1, 2019. Dkt. 88. In 

it, Defendant stated that Plaintiff still had not provided the documents that Magistrate Judge 

Laporte ordered him to provide by March 15, 2019. Id. 

On April 23, 2019, Magistrate Judge Laporte held a hearing on Plaintiff’s second 

motion for default judgment, which she denied. Dkt. 96.2 At the hearing, Magistrate Judge 

Laporte again ordered the parties to participate in a settlement conference before Magistrate 

Judge Westmore. Dkt. 94. Magistrate Judge Laporte also admonished Plaintiff that the 

action could be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or continued noncompliance with the 

Court’s orders. See Dkt. 96. Thereafter, Magistrate Judge Westmore scheduled a presettlement telephonic conference for June 13, 2019 at 2:15 p.m. Dkt. 97. Defendant 

appeared for the telephonic conference; Plaintiff did not. Dkt. 99. 

A district court may dismiss an action, sua sponte, if the plaintiff fails to prosecute 

or to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(b); see also Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 

2005); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). In determining whether to 

dismiss an action under Rule 41(b), the Court must weigh: (1) the public’s interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 

of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61. 

As set forth above, Plaintiff has violated (and continues to violate) Judge Chen’s 

order requiring the parties to participate in a settlement conference within 90 days of 

August 16, 2018. He has also failed on two occasions to comply with Magistrate Judge 

Westmore’s specific settlement conference orders. A settlement conference was initially 

scheduled for November 16, 2018. Plaintiff violated Magistrate Judge Westmore’s 

settlement conference order by not filing a timely settlement conference statement, 

 2 In denying the motion, Magistrate Judge Laporte noted that Defendant has “fully 

participated” in the case since the denial of the first motion for default judgment. Dkt. 95. 

Case 4:17-cv-06271-SBA Document 102 Filed 08/05/19 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

27 

28 

resulting in the termination of the scheduled conference. Plaintiff also failed to comply 

with Magistrate Judge Westmore’s subsequent order directing him to contact her chambers 

to reschedule the conference. More recently, in April 2019, Magistrate Judge Laporte again 

ordered the parties to participate in a settlement conference. Plaintiff violated that order, as 

well as Magistrate Judge Westmore’s subsequent scheduling order, when he failed to 

appear for the pre-settlement telephone conference on June 13, 2019. As a result of 

Plaintiff’s conduct, the parties have yet to complete their selected ADR process, despite the 

fact that Judge Chen first directed them to do so nearly two years ago. In doing so, Plaintiff 

has also wasted Magistrate Judge Westmore’s time and resources. 

The Court also observes that Plaintiff has done little to advance this action toward 

trial or some other final resolution. See Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Pioche Mines 

Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978) (“It is a well established rule that the duty to 

move a case is on the plaintiff and not on the defendant or the court.”). Although Plaintiff 

provided some initial disclosures, he had not, as of April 1, 2019 (and possibly to the 

present day), provided Defendant with a copy of the contract upon which the action is 

based. This is despite: (1) Judge Chen’s order in August 2018 requiring the parties to 

exchange their Rule 26 disclosures within 30 days; (2) the Case Management and Pretrial 

Order requiring the parties to supplement and/or correct their disclosures on an ongoing 

basis and at least 28 days before the fact discovery cutoff; and (3) Magistrate Judge 

Laporte’s order in February 2019 requiring Plaintiff to provide a copy of the contract and 

all other documents related to the breach of contract claim by March 15, 2019. 

Furthermore, although the fact discovery cutoff passed on May 14, 2019, it appears that no 

meaningful discovery has been completed. Nor was a dispositive motion (e.g., a motion for 

summary judgment) filed prior to the motion cutoff on July 2, 2019. 

The only action Plaintiff has taken in this case is the filing of two unsuccessful

motions for default judgment. The Court notes that the second of those motions was filed 

directly on the heels of the denial of the first motion, even though Defendant has “fully 

Case 4:17-cv-06271-SBA Document 102 Filed 08/05/19 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

27 

28 

participated” in the action following the first motion. Dkt. 95.3 In view of the forgoing, the 

Court is left with the impression that Plaintiff seeks to avoid a settlement conference or any 

other test of the merits of his action. 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff shall show cause why the action should 

not be dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with the Court’s orders requiring 

him to (1) participate in a settlement conference and (2) supplement his initial disclosures 

to provide Defendant with documents related to his breach of contract claim, including a 

copy of the contract. Within ten days of the date this Order is filed, Plaintiff shall file a 

written response (supported by a declaration, if appropriate) explaining why the action 

should or should not be dismissed. In addition, Plaintiff’s written response shall set forth 

the nature of the case, its present status (including the status of discovery), and the reasons 

that additional action has not been taken to bring the case to a final resolution (including 

why no dispositive motion was filed and whether Plaintiff anticipates filing a motion to 

modify the pretrial schedule if the case is not dismissed).4 FAILURE TO FULLY 

COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL BE DEEMED SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO 

DISMISS THE ACTION, WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 5, 2019 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

Senior United States District Judge 

 3 The Court acknowledges that Defendant has not always complied with court orders 

and deadlines. As stated above, however, Plaintiff bears the burden of advancing his case 

to a final determination. If a defendant fails to provide disclosures or respond to discovery 

requests, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to file the necessary motions to compel such 

action. The Court cannot adjudicate matters not placed before it by the parties. 

4 The parties are advised that the Court is not inclined to retroactively extend 

deadlines that have already passed, absent both exigent and unforeseen circumstances and a 

reasonable explanation as to why an extension was not sought sooner. 

Case 4:17-cv-06271-SBA Document 102 Filed 08/05/19 Page 5 of 5