Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02108/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02108-2/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

As the Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) 1

Conference states:

The failure of one or more of the parties to

participate in the preparation of the Joint

Status Report does not excuse the other

parties from their obligation to timely file

a status report in accordance with this

Order. In the event a party fails to

participate as ordered, the party timely

(continued...)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH ABDULLAH, ) 

) 2:05-cv-2108-GEB-DAD 

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v. ) AND CONTINUING STATUS

) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

NEW GENERATION TRADING COMPANY, ) CONFERENCE

)

Defendant. )

)

The January 17, 2006, Order Continuing Status (Pretrial

Scheduling) Conference (“January 17 Order”) rescheduled the status

conference in this case for April 3, 2006, and required that a joint

status report be filed no later than fourteen days prior to the

scheduling conference. A status report was required to be filed

regardless of whether a joint report could be procured. No status 1

Case 2:05-cv-02108-GEB-DAD Document 14 Filed 03/29/06 Page 1 of 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

(...continued) 1

submitting the status report shall include a

declaration explaining why it was unable to

obtain the cooperation of the other party or

parties. 

October 20, 2005, Order at 2 n. 1.

As prescribed in the October 20 Order, which the 2

January 17 Order incorporated by reference, Plaintiff was

required to serve Defendant with a copy of the October 20 Order

“[c]oncurrently with the service of process, or as soon

thereafter as possible . . . .” October 20, 2005, Order at 1.

“If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the 3

impact of sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the

clients, that is where the impact of the sanction should be

lodged.” Matter of 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. In re Hill, 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985).

2

report was filed.

Plaintiff and his counsel are Ordered to Show Cause (OSC) no

later than 4:00 p.m. on April 10, 2006, why sanctions should not be

imposed against counsel and/or Plaintiff under Rule 16(f) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the failure to file a timely

status report. This response shall also explain why counsel and/or

Plaintiff should not be sanctioned for failure to timely serve

Defendant with a copy of the January 17 Order, if Defendant was not

served with that Order in time for Defendant to file a status report.2

The written response must include the date on which service of the

Order was made and proof of that service. The written response shall

also state whether Plaintiff or counsel is at fault and whether a

hearing is requested on the OSC. If a hearing is requested, it will 3

be held on May 15, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., just prior to the status

conference, which is rescheduled to that date. 

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02108-GEB-DAD Document 14 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 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

3

The parties shall file a joint status report no later than

May 1, 2006. If Defendant has not been served with a copy of the

January 17 Order, Plaintiff shall serve it with a copy immediately. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02108-GEB-DAD Document 14 Filed 03/29/06 Page 3 of 3