Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01508/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01508-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 47:553 Unauthorized Reception of Cable Service

---

1

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

Before the Court is Plaintiff J&J Sports Production, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for terminating 

sanctions against Defendant Ruben Aranda Garcia (“Defendant”) for failure to produce discovery and 

otherwise meaningfully participate in this case. (Doc. 40). Defendant did not file an opposition to the 

motion. The motion was referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 

302. On October 10, 2014, a hearing on the motion was held. Counsel Thomas Riley appeared by 

telephone on behalf of Plaintiff. Defendant, proceeding pro se, did not appear at the hearing. Having 

considered the moving papers, oral arguments, as well as the Court’s file, Plaintiff’s motion for

terminating sanctions is GRANTED. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed its Complaint on September 13, 2012. (Doc. 1). Defendant was personally 

served at his residence on November 25, 2012. (Doc. 7). On December 19, 2012, after the time for 

J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RUBEN GARCIA ARANDA d/b/a EL 

CACHANILLA POOL HOUSE,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-1508-AWI-BAM

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS

Case 1:12-cv-01508-AWI-BAM Document 44 Filed 10/10/14 Page 1 of 6
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

filing a response to the Complaint had elapsed, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default against 

Defendant. (Doc. 8). Default was entered by the Clerk of the Court on January 16, 2013 and on March 

26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant. (Docs. 9, 11). Defendant 

failed to file an opposition to the motion and the Court took the matter under submission and vacated 

the hearing scheduled for May 3, 2013. 

On May 3, 2013, Defendant, who is proceeding without counsel, appeared in person at the 

hearing only to discover that the hearing had been vacated. On May 7, 2013, Defendant filed a letter 

with the Court stating that “he never showed the Mayweather v. Ortiz fight” at his establishment. 

(Doc. 16). The Court considered Defendant’s letter an opposition to the Clerk’s default and allowed 

this case to proceed. (Doc. 19). In its order setting aside default, the Court also Ordered Defendant to 

file an Answer to the Complaint on or before August 12, 2013. (Doc 19 at 8). No answer was filed. 

The Court thereafter set a Mandatory Scheduling Conference for November 6, 2013. (Doc. 21). 

The Court informed Defendant that prior to the conference, he was required to prepare a joint 

scheduling report. Defendant failed to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel on proposed dates and 

on October 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Scheduling Report noting that the scheduling report was 

“unilateral” because efforts to secure Defendant’s input were unavailing. (Doc. 22). 

On November 6, 2013, Defendant appeared in person at the scheduling conference, but case 

management dates were not issued. Plaintiff requested an opportunity to discuss settlement with the 

Defendant prior to issuing dates, which the Court granted. (Doc. 23). The Court postponed the 

Scheduling Conference to permit the parties to attempt to resolve the case and reset the Scheduling 

Conference for November 26, 2013, in the event a settlement was not reached. In the written order resetting the scheduling conference, the Court ordered Defendant to appear at the Scheduling 

Conference in person and again “admonished [Defendant] that he is required to file an answer to 

Plaintiff’s Complaint prior to the [November 26, 2013] Scheduling Conference.” (Doc. 32). No 

answer was filed. 

On November 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement and the Court vacated the 

scheduling conference and ordered the parties to file final dispositive documents. Shortly thereafter, 

Plaintiff withdrew his Notice of Settlement, and the Court reset the scheduling conference for 

Case 1:12-cv-01508-AWI-BAM Document 44 Filed 10/10/14 Page 2 of 6
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

February 20, 2014. Again, the Court Order Defendant to participate in the joint scheduling report and 

again he failed to do so. 

The Court held the scheduling conference on February 20, 2014. Attorney Reynaldo Pulido 

made a special appearance for Defendant and indicated that, although he was not Defendant’s attorney 

of record, he was assisting Defendant with settlement negotiations. (Doc. 31). The Court set another 

scheduling conference for March 12, 2014 and ordered Plaintiff to appear in person. (Doc. 32). 

Without prior notice, Defendant failed to appear at the hearing as ordered. (Doc. 33). The Court 

waited until 9:11 a.m., over ten minutes after the scheduling conference was to begin, and then 

dismissed Plaintiff’s counsel, noting that Defendant had failed to appear. Due to Defendant’s failure 

to appear at the scheduling conference, the Court did not issue case management dates. 

On March 13, 2014, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) as to why default 

should not be entered against Defendant for his failure to appear at the scheduling conference. At the 

show cause hearing, Defendant appeared at with an interpreter and the OSC was discharged. (Doc. 

38). 

After resetting the initial scheduling conference six times over the course of fifteen months, 

a scheduling order was finally entered on April 2, 2014. (Doc. 39). According to the scheduling 

order, the initial disclosure deadline is May 1, 2014, the discovery completion deadline is August 29, 

2014; pretrial motion deadline is October 31, 2014; and the pre-trial conference and bench trial before 

the district judge is scheduled for January 28, 2015, and March 24, 2015, respectively. Id. 

Plaintiff indicates that as of the date of this order, Defendant has failed to serve his initial 

disclosures or participate in the discovery process in any other way. Plaintiff brings the motion for 

terminating sanctions arguing that default should be entered against Defendant for his repeated failure 

to: (1) follow Court orders, (2) file an answer; (3) participate in the meet and confer process, and (4) 

produce initial disclosures. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the sanctions of striking 

pleadings and rendering default against parties who disobey a court’s discovery orders. Although casedispositive sanctions are usually reserved for repeated violations of court orders, even a single willful 

Case 1:12-cv-01508-AWI-BAM Document 44 Filed 10/10/14 Page 3 of 6
4

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

violation may suffice, depending on the circumstances. Valley Engineers Inc. v. Electric Eng. Co., 158 

F. 3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 1998). An explicit finding of willfulness or bad faith is a prerequisite to 

ordering dismissal. All that is required to demonstrate willfulness or bad faith is “disobedient conduct 

not shown to be outside the control of the litigant.” Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F. 2d 943, 948 

(9th Cir. 1993). Once the Court finds that discovery violations are “due to willfulness, bad faith, or 

fault of the party,” it weighs the following five factors in determining whether to impose a terminating 

sanction: 

(1) Public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation;

(2) The court’s need to manage its docket;

(3) Prejudice to other parties from the discovery violation;

(4) Public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and

(5) Whether less drastic sanctions are available and would provide effective deterrence for 

the particular violation.

Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F. 3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2004).

ANALYSIS

Upon review of the record in this case, the Court believes the only appropriate action is to 

recommend the entry of a default against the Defendant. 

1. Public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation.

The instant case was filed September 13, 2012, more than two years ago. Prior to the 

discovery period, Defendant’s appearance in this matter has been mired by delay. Defendant 

originally failed to appear in this matter after being served with the summons. Defendant’s first 

appearance was after the Clerk had entered default against him. After two years of pending litigation,

the parties began discovery in April 2, 2014, yet even initial disclosures have not been provided by 

defendant. (Doc. 39). 

2. The Court’s need to manage its docket.

As noted above, this case has been pending for over two years. The parties have yet to engage

in any meaningful discovery and settlement negotiations have been ongoing for approximately eleven

months—since November 6, 2013. The Court has held multiple status conferences and hearings in an 

Case 1:12-cv-01508-AWI-BAM Document 44 Filed 10/10/14 Page 4 of 6
5

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

effort to resolve Defendant’s continual failure to file an answer or comply with his discovery 

obligations. The Court has spent an inordinate amount of time in case management of this case to the 

detriment of other pending cases. The Court has had numerous status conferences, scheduling 

conferences, show cause hearings and other proceedings which drain judicial resources. Plaintiff has 

exhausted its legal remedies and defendant should no longer be permitted to unjustifiably delay 

litigation in this case and waste limited judicial resources.

3. Risk of prejudice.

The Ninth Circuit has held that “[f]ailing to produce documents as ordered is considered 

sufficient prejudice.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 

1227 (9th Cir. 2006). Defendant Garcia has failed to produce discovery as ordered. This failure has 

essentially prevented Plaintiff from moving toward a resolution of Plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff has been 

prejudiced by the delay in proceedings. Plaintiff has been unable to obtain even the most minimal 

discovery. 

4. Public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.

The Ninth Circuit has found that public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits 

strongly counsels against dismissal. Id. at 1223. In the instant case, however, Defendant’s 

unreasonable delay keeps the case from moving forward toward resolution on the merits. At oral 

argument on October 10, 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel referred to two recent telephone calls with 

defendant on September 30 and October 2, 2014. In those calls, defendant indicated he was not 

“interested” anymore. The Court finds that it is reasonable to conclude based upon the totality of the 

inaction in this case that defendant has abandoned this case and his defense.

5. Availability of less drastic sanctions.

“Warning that failure to obey a court order will result in dismissal can itself meet the 

‘consideration of alternatives requirements.” Id. The Court’s attempts at curing Defendant’s repeated 

failures to comply with court orders have been well documented and fruitless. Despite the Court’s 

numerous warnings, Defendant repeatedly failed to comply with the Court’s orders. 

Case 1:12-cv-01508-AWI-BAM Document 44 Filed 10/10/14 Page 5 of 6
6

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

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions against Defendant RUBEN GARCIA 

ARANDA d/b/a EL Cachanilla Pool House be GRANTED;

2. No answer has been filed by Defendant and therefore no answer can be stricken;

3. Default be Entered against Defendant RUBEN GARCIA ARANDA d/b/a EL Cachanilla 

Pool House;

4. Any Motion for Default Judgment by Plaintiff be filed within 30 days from the date of 

adoption of these Findings and Recommendations by the District Judge;

5. All other dates are VACATED.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen (14) 

days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings and 

recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties 

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 

district judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01508-AWI-BAM Document 44 Filed 10/10/14 Page 6 of 6