Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01112/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01112-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHANY CO., LTD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CRAIN WALNUT SHELLING, INC., 

et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-01112-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

 On June 4, 2014, in granting the motion to withdraw brought by plaintiff’s thencounsel, this court ordered plaintiff to engage new counsel of record within thirty days. (Order, 

ECF No. 65.) In the same order, the court also informed plaintiff that failure to engage new 

counsel would result in an order to show cause (OSC). (Id.) Because plaintiff did not comply 

with the court’s order, on July 10, 2014, the court issued an OSC why plaintiff did not comply 

with the court’s order and cautioned that potential sanctions could include monetary penalties and 

preclusion from opposing any re-noticed motions. (ECF No. 67.) The OSC was served by mail 

on plaintiff in South Korea on July 16, 2014. Plaintiff has not responded to the July 10 OSC or 

appeared in the action since the motion to withdraw was filed. (Order, ECF No. 71.) In light of 

those circumstances, on August 7, 2014, the court provided plaintiff one final opportunity to 

respond to the OSC. (Id.) The court cautioned that failure to respond would result in sanctions at 

the court’s discretion. (Id.) Plaintiff still has not responded to the OSC. Hence, on October 31, 

Case 2:11-cv-01112-KJM-EFB Document 75 Filed 01/23/15 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

2014, the court issued an order sanctioning plaintiff in the amount of $500 and precluding it from 

opposing the pending motions. (ECF No. 74.) As of the date of this order, plaintiff has not 

remitted that amount or otherwise responded to any of the OSCs. 

 “The right of access to the courts . . . [is not] absolute or unconditional.” Green v. 

Warden, U.S. Penitentiary, 699 F.2d 364, 369 (7th Cir. 1983) (cited by Johns v. Town of Los 

Gatos, 834 F. Supp. 1230, 1232 (N.D. Cal. 1993)). A district court has the inherent power to take 

actions to protect the orderly administration of justice and to maintain the court’s authority and 

dignity. Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644, 648 (9th Cir. 1997). The court 

need not exhaust all of its sanctioning mechanisms before resorting to its inherent powers. Id. 

Here, relying on its inherent powers, the court finds it proper to subject plaintiff 

Shany Co., Ltd to a pre-filing review order. Accordingly, the court ORDERS that any future 

complaints, petitions or requests filed by plaintiff Shany Co., Ltd in the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of California shall be subject to following pre-filing order: 

1. Any future complaint, petition or request filed by plaintiff in the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of California shall contain the sentence 

“THIS COMPLAINT/PETITION IS FILED SUBJECT TO PRE-FILING 

REVIEW ORDER IN CASE NO. 2:11-cv-01112-KJM-EFB” in capital letters 

in the caption of the complaint, petition or request. 

2. Any such action will not be permitted to proceed until Shany Co., Ltd 

satisfactorily complies or shows why it did not comply with any of this court’s 

OSCs. 

3. The Clerk shall not file the complaint, petition or request until it is reviewed 

and a determination is made by the assigned District Judge whether the case 

may proceed consistent with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 23, 2015. 

 

Case 2:11-cv-01112-KJM-EFB Document 75 Filed 01/23/15 Page 2 of 2