Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01717/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01717-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

05cv1717

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEADS CLUB, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LINDA PETERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05-CV-1717-J (JMA)

ORDER RECOMMENDING ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL

On January 24, 2007, this Court issued an Order to Show

Cause (“OSC”) Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed upon

Plaintiff’s counsel, James Bentson, Esq. Doc. No. 67. The

hearing on the OSC was scheduled for March 19, 2007 at 2:00 p.m.,

but was not held as Mr. Bentson failed to appear for the hearing.

For the reasons set forth below, this Court RECOMMENDS that

the Honorable Napoleon A. Jones, Jr. set an OSC Re Dismissal for

Plaintiff Leads Club Inc.’s failure to appear at scheduling and

pretrial conferences under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, and/or for failure to prosecute this action

under Civil Local Rule 41.1. 

Case 3:05-cv-01717-J-JMA Document 72 Filed 03/26/07 Page 1 of 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

2 05cv1717

I. BACKGROUND

The Court scheduled an Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”)

Conference to be held on September 28, 2006. Mr. Bentson was

extremely tardy for the conference and did not have a client

representative with him, as required by previous order of the

Court. See Aug. 30, 2006 & Oct. 13, 2006 Orders. During the

conference, Mr. Bentson advised the Court that he thought he had

been substituted out of the case, but that he would check with

his client about moving forward with the case. See Oct. 13, 2006

Order.

On December 6, 2006, the Court attempted to convene a

telephonic Case Management Conference, but was unable to do so as

Mr. Bentson was not available at the time of the conference call,

and counsel for Defendants advised that she had not received the

Court’s October 13, 2006 Order scheduling the conference. See

Dec. 6, 2006 Order.

On December 19, 2006 and January 23, 2007, the Court again

attempted to convene telephonic Case Management Conferences. 

Each time, the Court was again unable to do so due to Mr.

Bentson’s unavailability. Defendants’ counsel was available for

each of the conference calls. 

On January 24, 2007, this Court issued an Order to Show

Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed. The Order directed

Mr. Bentson to submit a declaration to the Court on or before

March 12, 2007. Mr. Bentson did not do so. Mr. Bentson also

failed to appear at the hearing on the OSC on March 19, 2007. 

Counsel for Defendants filed a Brief in Support of Issuance of

Terminating Sanctions Against Plaintiff Leads Club, Inc. on March

Case 3:05-cv-01717-J-JMA Document 72 Filed 03/26/07 Page 2 of 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

3 05cv1717

9, 2007. Doc. No. 68. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

in relevant part:

If a party or party’s attorney fails to obey a

scheduling or pretrial order, or if no appearance is

made on behalf of a party at a scheduling or pretrial

conference, or if a party or party’s attorney is

substantially unprepared to participate in the

conference, or if a party or party’s attorney fails to

participate in good faith, the judge, upon motion or

the judge’s own initiative, may make such orders with

regard thereto as are just, and among others any of the

orders provided in Rule 37(b)(2)(B), (C), (D).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). Rule 37(b)(2) permits the Court to issue

the following sanction orders:

(B) An order refusing to allow the disobedient

party to support or oppose designated claims

or defenses, or prohibiting that party from

introducing designated matters in evidence;

(C) An order striking out pleadings or parts

thereof, or staying further proceedings until

the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action

or proceeding or any part thereof, or

rendering a judgment by default against the

disobedient party;

(D) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in

addition thereto, an order treating as a

contempt of court the failure to obey any

orders . . . .

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(B)-(D). 

Civil Local Rule 41.1 provides:

Actions or proceedings which have been pending in this

court for more than six months, without any proceeding

or discovery having been taken therein during such

period, may, after notice, be dismissed by the court

for want of prosecution, at the calling of a calendar

for that purpose by the clerk. Such a dismissal shall

be without prejudice, unless otherwise ordered.

Case 3:05-cv-01717-J-JMA Document 72 Filed 03/26/07 Page 3 of 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

1

Additionally, pursuant to the Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure,

For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with

these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for

dismissal of an action or of any claim against the

defendant. Unless the court in its order for dismissal

otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision and

any dismissal not provided for in this rule . . . operates

as an adjudication upon the merits.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (emphasis added). Although Defendants submitted

a brief seeking the issuance of terminating sanctions against

Plaintiff, the Court does not construe the brief as a motion for

dismissal; rather, the brief was submitted in connection with the OSC

set by the Court.

4 05cv1717

Civ. L. R. 41.1.a.1 

III. DISCUSSION

Mr. Bentson has repeatedly failed to comply with the Court’s

orders. He failed to timely appear for the ENE Conference on

September 28, 2006, was unprepared, and failed to bring his

client(s). He failed to appear for telephonic Case Management

Conferences on December 6, 2006, December 19, 2006, and January

23, 2007. He did not submit a declaration, as ordered, relating

to the OSC, and failed to appear for the hearing on the OSC on

March 29, 2007. 

Additionally, Plaintiff and its counsel have failed to

prosecute this action. Plaintiff’s last attempted participation

in this case occurred nearly six months ago, on September 28,

2006, when Mr. Bentson arrived, albeit late and unprepared, for

the ENE Conference. Arguably, Plaintiff has done nothing to

prosecute this matter since even before that date. The last item

on the Court’s docket from Plaintiff appears to be a letter to

the Court dated November 10, 2005 (i.e., over one year ago)

regarding oral argument on motions that were pending at that

Case 3:05-cv-01717-J-JMA Document 72 Filed 03/26/07 Page 4 of 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

5 05cv1717

time. Doc. No. 53. Mr. Bentson has not attempted to withdraw as

counsel of record for Plaintiff, nor has Plaintiff attempted to

file a substitution of attorney. According to Defendants,

Plaintiff has made no attempt to coordinate a Rule 26(f)

conference regarding discovery, or to take any discovery in this

action. Defs.’ Br. [Doc. No. 68] at 2. Finally, the Court

observes that Plaintiff did not oppose a motion for sanctions

filed by Defendants on October 10, 2006. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, this Court RECOMMENDS that Judge

Jones set an Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal for Plaintiff’s

failure to appear at scheduling and pretrial conferences under

Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and/or for

failure to prosecute this action under Civil Local Rule 41.1. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 26, 2007

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01717-J-JMA Document 72 Filed 03/26/07 Page 5 of 5