Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00134/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00134-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SURHJINDER SINGTUTT, 

Plaintiff,

v.

PACCAR INC. d/b/a PETERBILT MOTOR 

CO. a foreign corporation,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-00134-LJO-SKO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WITHIN 

SEVEN (7) DAYS WHY SANCTIONS 

SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 

This case was removed to this Court from the Fresno County Superior Court on January 

30, 2014. A scheduling conference was set for May 6, 2014. (Doc. 2.) On April 29, 2014, 

Defendant Paccar, Inc. ("Defendant") filed a scheduling report statement supported by the

declaration of Steven McEvoy, Defendant's counsel, indicating that Defendant had been unable to 

contact Plaintiff's counsel for preparation of the joint scheduling report to be filed on or before 

April 29, 2014.

Defendant states that on January 30, 2014, it served Plaintiff's counsel, Lisa Sherman, with 

notice of the removal of the case. Ms. Sherman contacted Defendant's counsel to advise that 

another attorney had been substituted in her place just prior to service of Defendant's removal 

notice. Ms. Sherman did not have the contact information for the new attorney, but directed 

Defendant's counsel to contact Jason Hegedus of the Lemon Law Group located in Michigan. 

(Doc. 10-1, McEvoy Decl., ¶ 1.) Defendant's counsel left a voicemail message for Mr. Hegedus. 

(Doc. 10-1, McEvoy Decl., ¶ 2.)

Case 1:14-cv-00134-LJO-SKO Document 11 Filed 05/01/14 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

2

Defendant thereafter obtained Plaintiff's new counsel's information from the filed 

substitution of attorney form on the Fresno County Superior Court docket. Plaintiff's new counsel 

of record is Kathryn Abrams of Abrams & Waldstein, LLP, in Beverly Hills, California, as set 

forth in the filing with the Fresno County Superior Court on January 8, 2014. (See Singtutt v. 

Paccar, Inc., Case no. 13CVCG03679, Fresno County Superior Court.)

Defendant's counsel re-served the notice of removal documents on Ms. Abrams on 

February 18, 2014. (Doc. 10-1, McEvoy Decl., ¶ 3.) On March 31, 2014, Defendant's counsel 

faxed a letter to Ms. Abrams advising of the scheduling order and requesting dates to meet and 

confer prior to April 15, 2014. (Doc. 10-1, McEvoy Decl., ¶ 4.) The letter was faxed to the fax 

number listed on the attorney substitution form and the number provided by Ms. Abrams to the 

State Bar of California. However, Ms. Abrams did not contact Defendant's counsel. 

Defendant's counsel faxed another letter to Ms. Abrams on April 15, 2014, with the same 

information. An unidentified individual contacted Defendant's counsel telephonically and left a 

voicemail stating that Ms. Abrams was not an attorney at the office to which the fax was 

transmitted. This individual did not leave a number or the name of the firm or office with which 

the fax number was associated. Defendant's counsel then called the phone number Ms. Abrams 

listed on the attorney substitution form as well as the number she provided to the State Bar of 

California. The telephone number was out of service. (Doc. 10-1, McEvoy Decl., ¶ 5.)

Defendant's counsel performed an internet search for Ms. Abrams, but the only contact 

information found was the same as that provided in the substitution of attorney form filed with the 

Fresno County Superior Court and that listed on the State Bar of California's website. Defendant's 

counsel left another voicemail message for Mr. Hegedus, but he did not return the call. (Doc. 10-

1, McEvoy Decl., ¶ 6.)

On April 16, 2014, Defendant's counsel sent a letter by Certified Mail to the address listed 

on the attorney substitution form and on Ms. Abrams' State Bar of California website profile. The 

letter was delivered, but Defendant's counsel did not receive a response to any letters or phone 

calls from Plaintiff or his counsel. (Doc. 10-1, McEvoy Decl., ¶ 7.) As a result, the parties were 

unable to meet and confer regarding the preparation of the joint scheduling report.

Case 1:14-cv-00134-LJO-SKO Document 11 Filed 05/01/14 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 Court's order regarding the scheduling conference requires trial counsel for all parties 

to conduct a conference at least 20 days prior to the scheduling conference and to prepare a joint 

scheduling report. (Doc. 2, 3:21-24.) As Plaintiff's counsel has failed to communicate with 

Defendant's counsel regarding the preparation of the joint scheduling report and failed to jointly 

submit a scheduling report or other request prior to the deadline to do so, Plaintiff shall show 

cause why sanctions, up to and including dismissal, should not be imposed or recommended.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within 7 days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall file a statement indicating 

why sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this action, should not be imposed 

or recommended for failure to comply with the Court's order regarding the 

submission of a joint scheduling report;

2. If Plaintiff fails to respond to this order to show cause, the Court may recommend 

that Plaintiff's suit be dismissed; and 

3. The Scheduling Conference currently set for May 6, 2014, is VACATED and will 

be reset if and when appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00134-LJO-SKO Document 11 Filed 05/01/14 Page 3 of 3