Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00305/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00305-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 This amount represents the jury costs incurred by the

Court and may properly be imposed as a sanction. See Lasar v. Ford

Motor Company, 399 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2005); Zambrano v.

Tafolla, 885 F.2d 1473, 1480 (9th Cir. 1989). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY WARD, )

) 02:04-cv-0305-GEB-DAD

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

)

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, a )

Political Division of the )

State of California; SOUTH )

LAKE TAHOE POLICE DEPARTMENT; )

POLICE OFFICER D. BAKER; )

POLICE OFFICER SILVA; and )

POLICE OFFICER RAMIREZ, )

) 

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff and his counsel of record are Ordered to Show

Cause (“OSC”) no later than November 10, 2005, why sanctions in the

amount of $2,368.141 should not be imposed against counsel and/or

Plaintiff for their failure to inform chambers before 4:30 p.m.

November 7, 2005, that Plaintiff’s action had been stayed. 

On the first day of trial, November 8, 2005, just as the

parties were about to exercise their peremptory challenges against

Case 2:04-cv-00305-GEB -DAD Document 41 Filed 11/09/05 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

prospective jurors, Plaintiff’s counsel of record informed the

Court that Plaintiff had filed a bankruptcy petition that could

stay the action being tried. Plaintiff’s filing of a bankruptcy

petition did, in fact, automatically stay the action. See In re

Pace, 159 B.R. 890, 898 (9th Cir. BAP 1993) aff’d in relevant part,

rev’d in part on other grounds, 67 F.3d 187 (1995). As a result,

those individuals called to jury service were excused and a

mistrial was declared.

Before Court adjourned, an oral OSC issued. Plaintiff’s

counsel of record, in response to the OSC, conceded that he could

have notified chambers about Plaintiff’s bankruptcy petition on

November 7, 2005, in time to vacate the trial date, but that he

failed to do so. This failure by Plaintiff’s counsel of record

constitutes a violation of Local Rule 40-280(a). Sanctions may be

imposed against Plaintiff’s counsel of record if this violation was

“grossly negligent, reckless, or willful.” Zambrano v. Tafolla,

885 F.2d 1473, 1479 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff may also be

sanctioned if the failure to inform the Court of his bankruptcy

petition was in “bad faith.” See id. at 1478.

The hearing on the OSC is scheduled for 8:00 a.m. on

November 16, 2005, in Courtroom 1 located at 1130 “O” Street,

Fresno, California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 9, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-00305-GEB -DAD Document 41 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 2