Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583-40/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY D. HAMILTON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

HENRY W. WILLMS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

____________________________________)

CV F 02-6583 AWI SMS

ORDER REQUIRING THE

PRESENCE OF PARTIES AND

ATTORNEYS AT THE JANUARY

22, 2007 HEARING

 This action was set to proceed to trial on December 5, 2006. On December 4, 2006, after

the court denied any motion to continue the trial to resolve pending discovery matters, the

parties’ attorneys contacted the court and stated that they had reached an agreement to continue

the trial. The court then held a recorded telephonic hearing. The attorneys stated during the

telephonic hearing that in return for Plaintiffs dismissing certain defendants and causes of action,

Defendants agreed to continue the trial to allow time for the court to rule on pending discovery

issues. Both Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ attorneys stated that they had their clients’ consent to

enter this stipulation. The court directed the parties to put the stipulation into writing and submit

it to the court. No stipulation was ever filed.

On December 11, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to enforce the stipulation and award

sanctions. 

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 518 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 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 2

On January 8, 2007, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. Plaintiffs’ basic opposition is that (1)

Sharon Hamilton never consented to the stipulation; (2) Terry Hamilton did not understand the

stipulation; and/or (3) All of the stipulations’ terms had yet to be negotiated and no real

stipulation was ever reached by the parties. 

The court has reviewed the briefs, declarations, and evidence provided by the parties

concerning the pending motion and the December 4, 2006 telephonic hearing. The court takes

the allegations made by both Plaintiffs, Defendants, and their attorneys in the motion and

opposition seriously. The court is prepared to hold an evidentiary hearing to ascertain the truth

of the assertions the parties and attorneys have made on the record in this action. As such, the

court finds it necessary to require certain individuals to be present for the January 22, 2007

hearing and be prepared to offer testimony, under penalty of perjury, in response to the court’s

potential questions.

Accordingly, the following individuals are REQUIRED to attend the previously set

January 22, 2007 hearing on Defendants’ motion and are REQUIRED to be in Courtroom 2 at

1:30 p.m. on January 22, 2007:

1. Terry Hamilton;

2. Sharon Hamilton;

3. David Gilmore; and

4. Anthony Capozzi.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 518 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 2