Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00561/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00561-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Scott Johnson,

Plaintiff,

v.

Kamboj LLC, a California 

Limited Liability Company;

Sacramento Petroleum Inc., a

California Corporation; and 

Does 1-10,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-00561-GEB-DAD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE

The February 26, 2014, Order Setting Status (Pretrial 

Scheduling) Conference scheduled a status conference in this case 

on June 9, 2014, and required the parties to file a joint status 

report no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the scheduling 

conference. The February 26, 2014 Order further required that a 

status report be filed regardless of whether a joint report could 

be procured. No status report was filed as ordered.

Therefore, Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”) 

in a writing to be filed no later than June 9, 2014, why 

sanctions should not be imposed against him and/or his counsel 

under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for 

failure to file a timely status report. The written response 

shall also state whether Plaintiff or his counsel is at fault,

Case 2:14-cv-00561-MCE-AC Document 7 Filed 05/29/14 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

and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC.1 If a hearing is 

requested, it will be held on July 7, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., just 

prior to the status conference, which is rescheduled to that date 

and time. A joint status report shall be filed no later than 

fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2014

 

1 “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.” In re 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. Myers v. Shekter (In re Hill), 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985).

Case 2:14-cv-00561-MCE-AC Document 7 Filed 05/29/14 Page 2 of 2