Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02228/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02228-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

DERALD PEAY AND DEBRA PEAY,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

MIDLAND MORTGAGE COMPANY;

MORTGAGE PROCESS CENTER;

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.;

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.;

U.S. BANK NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION; T.D. SERVICE

COMPANY; AHMSI DEFAULT

SERVICES, INC.; RON ALLEN AND

ASSOCIATES; RONNIE D. ALLEN;

MARISSA BACO; and DOES 1

through 50, inclusive, 

Defendants. /

NO. CIV. 09-2228 WBS KJM

ORDER RE: SANCTIONS

----oo0oo----

In response to this court’s February 2, 2010 Order,

counsel for plaintiffs submitted a declaration attempting to

justify her noncompliance with the Local Rules by explaining that

the staff working on the case is “overwhelmed with work.” 

Case 2:09-cv-02228-WBS -KJM Document 55 Filed 02/16/10 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

1This court noted in its February 2, 2010 Order that Ms.

Lapin has previously failed to comply with Local Rule 230(c) by

failing to timely file any papers in response to a motion to

dismiss. See Pok st al. v. Am. Home Mortgage Serv. Inc. et al., No. 2:09-cv-2385, Docket Nos. 21, 23. Furthermore, counsel’s

inadvertence in this case resulted in the waste of this court’s

resources by examining the merits of and issuing an Order on

defendants Midland Mortgage Company and U.S. Bank’s Motion to

Dismiss. 

2

(Docket No. 54.) 

This attempt to excuse noncompliance with the Local

Rules does not show good cause why the court should not impose

sanctions.1

 Counsel for plaintiffs should not have undertaken

the representation of plaintiffs if she was so overwhelmed by her

other cases that she could not timely file an opposition to a

motion to dismiss. If counsel chose to represent plaintiffs

despite her busy caseload, she was obliged to comply with the

Local Rules. 

A district court has the authority under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 16(f) to impose sanctions for even

unintentional or negligent noncompliance with the court's

pretrial orders. See, e.g., Lucas Auto. Eng'g, Inc. v.

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 275 F.3d 762, 769 (9th Cir. 2001)

(upholding Rule 16 sanctions imposed on a party for

unintentionally failing to attend a scheduled mediation due to an

incapacitating headache); Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d

1267, 1270 (9th Cir. 1990) (upholding a district court's

sanctions under Rule 16(f) where counsel failed to appear for a

settlement conference because the date “slipped by him”); Mt.

Shasta Title & Escrow Co. v. Pennbrook Homes, No. 07-963, 2007 WL

4210478, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2007) (Burrell, J.)

Case 2:09-cv-02228-WBS -KJM Document 55 Filed 02/16/10 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

(sanctioning counsel $200 for mistakenly filing an inaccurate

status report indicating that a party had been served); see also

William W. Schwarzer et al., Practice Guide: Federal Civil

Procedure Before Trial 15:81 (Nat'l ed. 2009) (“It need not be

shown that the party to be sanctioned was acting recklessly or in

bad faith. Negligent failure to comply with Rule 16 justifies

imposition of appropriate sanctions.”).

Accordingly, counsel for plaintiffs has failed to show

good cause why the court should not impose sanctions for the

failure to comply with Local Rule 230(c). Further, because

counsel for plaintiff has explained that her failure to comply

with the Local Rule was the cause of plaintiffs’ noncompliance,

payment shall be borne by counsel rather than her clients.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, within ten days of the

date of this Order, counsel for plaintiffs shall send payment in

the amount of $200, as sanctions, to the Clerk of the Court or

request that the matter be scheduled for a formal hearing.

DATED: February 12, 2010

Case 2:09-cv-02228-WBS -KJM Document 55 Filed 02/16/10 Page 3 of 3