Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02981/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02981-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1132 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS E. CHILDS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

VERIZON WIRELESS MANAGED

DISABILITY BENEFITS PLAN,

and METROPOLITAN LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

 Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:12-cv-02981-GEB-DAD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND

CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL

SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE

The December 10, 2012, Order Setting Status (Pretrial

Scheduling) Conference scheduled a status conference in this case on

March 18, 2013, and required the parties to file a joint status report

no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the scheduling conference. The

December 10, 2012 Order further required that a status report be filed

regardless of whether a joint report could be procured. No status report

was filed as ordered.

Therefore, each party is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”) in a

writing to be filed no later than March 15, 2013, why sanctions should

not be imposed against him/it and/or his/its counsel under Rule 16(f) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to file a timely status

report. The written response shall also state whether the party or

his/its counsel is at fault, and whether a hearing is requested on the

1

Case 2:12-cv-02981-TLN-DAD Document 8 Filed 03/11/13 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

OSC. If a hearing is requested, it will be held on April 15, 2013, at 1

9:00 a.m., just prior to the status conference, which is rescheduled to

that date and time. A joint status report shall be filed no later than

fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2013

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

Senior United States District Judge

“If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the impact 1

of sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the clients, that

is where the impact of the sanction should be lodged.” Matter of

Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1442 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied,

471 U.S. 1014 (1985). Sometimes the faults of attorneys, and their

consequences, are visited upon clients. In re Hill, 775 F.2d 1385, 1387

(9th Cir. 1985).

2

Case 2:12-cv-02981-TLN-DAD Document 8 Filed 03/11/13 Page 2 of 2