Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-03149/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-03149-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ISABEL BEL MONTEZ, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF STOCKTON, a municipal 

corporation, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:10-cv-3149-MCE-EFB 

ORDER 

 This case was before the court on June 29, 2016, for hearing on defendants’ motion for 

sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 (ECF Nos. 44, 45, 46); defendants 

Timothy McDermott and Mark Marquez’s motions to compel plaintiffs J.G. and I.G. to provide 

further responses to discovery requests (ECF Nos. 40, 41); and the court’s order to show cause 

why plaintiffs should not be sanctioned for violating Local Rule 230 (ECF No. 47). Attorney 

James Cook appeared on behalf of plaintiffs; Deputy City Attorney Ted Wood appeared on behalf 

of defendants. 

 For the reasons stated on the record, plaintiffs’ counsel failed to show good cause for his 

failure to timely file either an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motions in 

violation of Local Rule 230. Accordingly, counsel, and not his client, is sanctioned in the amount 

of $300 for his failure to comply with the court’s local rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 (“Failure of 

Case 2:10-cv-03149-MCE-EFB Document 52 Filed 06/30/16 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 

2

counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds 

for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 

inherent power of the Court.”). This sum shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court no later than July 

6, 2016. This sanction is personal to counsel and is not to be passed on to his client in the form of 

attorney fees and costs. Counsel shall inform the plaintiffs in writing of this order and provide a 

copy to the plaintiffs. Counsel shall file by July 6, 2016, a declaration that his clients have been 

so informed. 

 Further, as stated on the record plaintiffs’ counsel has failed to comply with Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 17 and Local Rule 202(a) as to the minor plaintiffs. Accordingly, by no later 

than July 27, 2016, Mr. Cook shall either (1) present appropriate evidence of the appointment of a 

representative for minor plaintiffs J.G. and I.G. under state law, or (2) file a motion for the 

appointment of a guardian ad litem. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 202(a). Counsel is admonished that 

failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 

 Lastly, defendants’ motions are denied without prejudice for the reasons stated on the 

record. 

So Ordered. 

DATED: June 29, 2016. 

Case 2:10-cv-03149-MCE-EFB Document 52 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 2