Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01398/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01398-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLADYS MUSIC; WARNER BROS.,

INC.; SOMERSET SONGS PUBLISHING,

INC.; and FAMOUS MUSIC CORPORATION,

NO. CIV. S-05-1398 LKK/DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

CHARLES EDWARD FISH,

Defendant.

 /

The court is in receipt of defense counsel’s request to

reconsider imposition of sanctions. The court has reviewed the

request. 

Counsel provides no adequate explanation for the failure to

file an answer and a status report. “[A] party who ignores any

case management deadline does so at his own peril.” Rushing v.

Kansas City Southern Railway, 185 F.3d 496, 508 (5th Cir. 1999);

cf. McKinnon v. Kwong Wah Restaurant, 84 F.3d 498, 504 (1st Cir.

1996) (where counsel was “aware of the pending legal problem, but

Case 2:05-cv-01398-LKK -DAD Document 16 Filed 09/28/05 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

2

hoped that it ‘would all go away,’” counsel did not demonstrate

excusable neglect). 

No good cause being shown, the request is DENIED. The court’s

order imposing sanctions is CONFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 27, 2005

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:05-cv-01398-LKK -DAD Document 16 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 2