Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02221/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02221-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

ANDREW FERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

TW TELECOM HOLDINGS INC., and 

DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendant.*

No. 2:13-cv-02221-GEB-CKD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE

The October 24, 2013 Order Setting Status (Pretrial 

Scheduling) Conference scheduled a status conference in this case 

on January 21, 2014, and required the parties to file a joint 

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

scheduling conference. The October 24, 2013 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, each party is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”) 

in a writing to be filed no later than January 24, 2014, why 

sanctions should not be imposed against the party and/or the 

party’s counsel under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure for failure to file a timely status report. The written 

 

* The caption has been amended according to Karen Fernandez’s voluntary 

dismissal. (See ECF No. 14, 2:1.)

Case 2:13-cv-02221-GEB-CKD Document 16 Filed 01/15/14 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

response shall also state whether the party or the party’s

counsel is at fault, and whether a hearing is requested on the 

OSC.1 If a hearing is requested, it will be held on March 3, 

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: January 15, 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 2:13-cv-02221-GEB-CKD Document 16 Filed 01/15/14 Page 2 of 2