Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01594/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01594-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

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 

THOMSEN AS TRUSTEES OF THE

REDWOOD EMPIRE ELECTRICAL 

WORKERS HEALTH AND WELFARE 

TRUST FUND, REDWOOD EMPIRE 

ELECTRICAL WORKERS PENSION 

TRUST, JOINT ELECTRICAL INDUSTRY 

TRAINING PROGRAM, NATIONAL 

EMPLOYEES BENEFIT FUND, 

AND REDWOOD EMPIRE ELECTRICAL 

WORKERS WORK RECOVERY FUND, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

PETALUMA ELECTRIC, INC., 

a California Corporation, 

 Defendant. 

Case No: C 09-1594 SBA 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Jack Buckhorn and Anisa Thomsen, as trustees of the Redwood Empire Health 

and Welfare and Pension Trust Funds (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring the instant action under the 

Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1132, to recover unpaid trust fund 

contributions allegedly owed by Defendant Petaluma Electric, Inc. (“Defendant”). 

On January 4, 2010, the Court entered its Order for Pretrial Preparation, in accordance with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. (Docket 14.) The Court set this matter for a one-day court 

trial to commence on August 2, 2010, with the pretrial conference to take place on April 6, 2010. 

(Id. at 2.) Numerous deadlines were set based on the date of the pretrial conference: (1) meet and 

confer regarding compliance with pretrial requirements – thirty days prior to the pretrial 

conference; (2) pretrial documents (i.e., Joint Pretrial Statement, Proposed Findings of Fact and 

Case 4:09-cv-01594-SBA Document 31 Filed 07/16/10 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

Conclusions of Law, etc., – due twenty eight days prior to the pretrial conference; and (3) motions 

in limine – due twenty-one days prior to the pretrial conference. (Id. at 2-3.) Upon stipulated 

request of the parties, the Court subsequently moved the pretrial conference to July 21, 2010, and 

advanced the trial date to July 28, 2010. (Docket 19, 23.) The Court did not alter the deadlines for 

filing pretrial documents. 

Based on the pretrial scheduling order, pretrial documents were due on June 23, 2010, and 

motions in limine were due on June 30, 2010. Plaintiffs filed their motions in limine on July 1, 

2010, and their pretrial documents on July 14, 2010. Although Plaintiffs’ documents are late, 

Defendants have filed none of the documents required under the Court’s scheduling order. In their 

separately-filed Pretrial Conference Statement, Plaintiffs state that since June 16, 2010, they have 

made numerous, unsuccessful attempts to meet and confer with Defendant regarding the 

submission of a Joint Pretrial Conference Statement. Because Defendant apparently failed to 

respond to these inquiries, Plaintiffs were forced to file their statement separately. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. DEFENDANT’S VIOLATION OF PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

“A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly 

disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 

(9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations omitted). “In these days of heavy caseloads, trial courts . . . set 

schedules and establish deadlines to foster the efficient treatment and resolution of cases.” Wong 

v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005). As such, a party’s failure to 

comply with the Court’s scheduling order undermines the administration of justice. In this regard, 

the Ninth Circuit has stated that the “[d]isregard of the order would undermine the court’s ability to 

control its docket, disrupt the agreed-upon course of the litigation, and reward the indolent and the 

cavalier.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the district court has the discretion, upon motion 

or sua sponte, to impose sanctions upon any party which “fails to obey a scheduling or other 

pretrial order.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f)(1)(C). “Instead of or in addition to any other sanction,” the 

court may order the offending party and/or its counsel to pay attorney’s fees and other reasonable 

Case 4:09-cv-01594-SBA Document 31 Filed 07/16/10 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

expenses incurred by its non-compliance, absent a showing that such non-compliance was 

“substantially justified” or other circumstances that would “make an award of expenses unjust.” 

Id. 16(f)(2). In addition, Rule 16(f)(1) expressly incorporates the sanctions specified in Rule 

37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), which includes “rendering a default against a disobedient party.” 

“Parties must understand that they will pay a price for failure to comply strictly with 

scheduling and other orders[.]” Wong, 975 F.3d at 1060. Based on Defendant’s non-compliance 

with the Court’s pretrial scheduling order, the Court will direct Defendant to show cause why 

sanctions should not be imposed, up to and including the entry of default. 

B. PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiffs have filed two motions in limine. In the first motion, Plaintiffs seek to exclude 

any reference to the settlement agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendant in a prior lawsuit on 

the ground that it is not relevant to any issue at trial. See Fed.R.Evid. 401. In their second motion, 

Plaintiffs seek to preclude any oral or written testimony of Edgar Ponce and Justin Daly, two 

current or former employees of Defendant, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The Court’s 

Order for Pretrial Preparation warns the parties that the failure to oppose any motion “shall 

constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.” (Docket 14 at 2.) Having received no 

opposition from Defendant, the Court grants both of Plaintiffs’ motions in limine. 

III. CONCLUSION

In view of the foregoing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. By no later than 12:00 p.m. on Monday, July 19, 2010, Defendant shall file a 

Certificate of Counsel and show cause why its default should not be taken and/or why 

monetary sanctions should not be imposed against Defendant and/or its counsel under Rule 

16(f) for failure to comply with the Court’s pretrial scheduling order. FAILURE TO FULLY 

COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL BE DEEMED SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO ENTER 

DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND/OR IMPOSE MONETARY SANCTIONS, WITHOUT 

FURTHER NOTICE. 

 2. Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine are GRANTED. 

Case 4:09-cv-01594-SBA Document 31 Filed 07/16/10 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

3. This Order terminates Docket 24. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 15, 2010 

________________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-01594-SBA Document 31 Filed 07/16/10 Page 4 of 4