Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00346/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00346-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ED EDGAR, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

S.A. RECYCLING AND/OR SIMMS )

METAL MANAGEMENT, ET AL., )

)

)

Defendants. )

 ) 

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00346 LJO JLT

ORDER TO W. ROD MCCLELLAND TO FILE

A PLEADING TO REMOVE HIMSELF FROM

THIS CASE OR TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED

FOR HIS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH

COURT ORDERS

ORDER CONTINUING SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE

(Doc. 19)

Before the Court is the request of the Defendants to continue the scheduling conference

from July 29, 2010 to September 23, 2010. (Doc. 19 at 5) The Scheduling Conference had been

scheduled to be heard, originally, on June 1, 2010. (Doc. 7) However, because Plaintiff had

failed to serve the new case documents on the Defendants, they and their counsel were unaware

of the scheduling conference. (Doc. 13 at 3) Also, Plaintiff had failed to serve named defendants

S.A. Recycling and/or Simms Metal Management dba Golden State Metals. Id. As a result, the

Court continued the Scheduling Conference to July 29, 2010. (Doc. 14)

Currently, the Defendants have provided evidence that Plaintiff’s counsel of record, W.

Rod McClelland, Jr., has reported that he no longer represents Plaintiff. (Doc. 19 at 3) Although

Defendants alerted Mr. McClelland on July 15, 2010, that he remains counsel of record in this

1

Case 1:10-cv-00346-LJO -JLT Document 20 Filed 07/22/10 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

case, he has failed to take steps to remove himself from the matter. (Doc. 19 at 3-4) Moreover, no

other attorney has substituted in Mr. McClelland’s place, he has failed to return counsel’s e-mails

related to his representation and has failed to meet and confer with the Defendants regarding the

upcoming Scheduling Conference. Id.

Defendants report also, that they have been informed that another attorney, Mr.

Lovretovich, he has agreed to represent Plaintiff but has “had some trouble securing the file.”

(Doc. 19 at 4) Defendants reminded Mr. Lovretovich that he had not yet substituted into the case

officially and that Mr. McClelland remains the counsel of record. Id. Thus, Defendants and Mr.

Lovretovich have been unable to discuss the substantive issues required to prepare their joint

statement and have been unable to stipulate to continued the Scheduling Conference. Id.

On February 26, 2010, the Court issued its “Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling

Conference.” That Order set forth the obligations of counsel related to the Scheduling

Conference. The Order reads,

“The Court is unable to conduct a scheduling conference until defendants have

been served with the summons and complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff(s) shall

diligently pursue service of summons and complaint and dismiss those defendants

against whom plaintiff(s) will not pursue claims.”

(Doc. 7 at 1) The Order continues,

It is the obligation of counsel for the plaintiff(s) to serve a copy of this Order on

the defendant(s), or, if identified, on their counsel, promptly upon receipt of this

Order, and to file an appropriate proof of such service with the Court, in

compliance with Rule 135(a) of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern

District of California.

Id. at 2. Notably, the Order sets forth the duty of counsel to meet and confer as to the substantive

issues outlined therein. The Order reads,

At least twenty (20) days prior to the Mandatory Scheduling Conference, the

actual trial counsel for all parties shall conduct and conclude a conference at a

time and place arranged by counsel for the plaintiff(s). This conference should

preferably be a personal conference between all counsel but, due to the distances

involved in this District, a telephonic conference call involving all counsel is

permissible.

Id. at 3-4. The Court provides also, “Duty to Meet and Confer. The parties shall meet and confer

regarding the following matters during the Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) conference: . . .” Id. at 6.

2

Case 1:10-cv-00346-LJO -JLT Document 20 Filed 07/22/10 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

Finally, the Order reads,

SHOULD COUNSEL OR A PARTY APPEARING PRO SE FAIL TO

APPEAR AT THE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE, OR

FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS AS SET FORTH ABOVE,

AN EX PARTE HEARING MAY BE HELD AND JUDGMENT OF

DISMISSAL, DEFAULT, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT MAY

BE ENTERED, OR SANCTIONS, INCLUDING CONTEMPT OF COURT,

MAY BE IMPOSED AND/OR ORDERED.

Id. at 8, emphasis in the original.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that there is good cause to continue the

Scheduling Conference once again, to September 23, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. The parties are ordered

to comply with the February 26, 2010 Order (Doc. 7) related to the preparation and filing of the

Joint Statement.

Moreover, it appears to the Court that Plaintiff’s attorney of record, W. Rod McClelland,

Jr., has failed to comply with the Orders of the Court and due to his conduct the progress of this

case has been excessively delayed.

Therefore the Court ORDERS:

1. The Scheduling Conference currently set on July 29, 2010, will be continued to

September 23, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.,

2. No later than July 30, 2010, W. Rod McClelland, Jr. shall file whatever pleading

he deems necessary to remove himself from as the attorney of record and he shall

cooperate with Plaintiff or his new counsel in taking on the prosecution of this

case; OR no later than July 30, 2010, he shall show cause why sanctions should

not be imposed for his repeated failures to comply with the Court’s Orders

detailed above; 

3. Defendants are ordered to serve a copy of this Order on Mr. Lovretovich and file

proof of service with this Court no later than July 27, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

3

Case 1:10-cv-00346-LJO -JLT Document 20 Filed 07/22/10 Page 3 of 3