Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02564/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02564-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUSTIN SINGH and RANJIT SINGH, )

) 2:05-cv-2564-GEB-KJM

Plaintiffs, )

) ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS

v. ) 

)

ARROW TRUCK SALES, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

)

An Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) issued on March 15, 2006,

requiring Plaintiffs to explain why sanctions should not be imposed

against Plaintiffs and/or their counsel for their failure to file a

timely joint status report (“JSR”) in compliance with the December 19,

2005, Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference (“December

19 Order”).

On March 23, 2006, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a declaration

in response to the OSC, in which Plaintiffs’ counsel state “this law

office accepts responsibility and liability for the untimely filing of

the Status Report.” (Ukeje Decl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs’ counsel

expressly declined a hearing on the OSC. (Id. at ¶ 11.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel declare they “never received the

[December 19 Order,]” and that they only learned of it on March 6,

2006, the deadline by which a JSR was supposed to have been filed,

Case 2:05-cv-02564-GEB -KJM Document 24 Filed 07/06/06 Page 1 of 4
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 The December 19 Order was electronically submitted to

info@anthonyegbaselaw.com at 9:52 a.m. on December 19, 2005. 

This is reflected in the attached Notice of Electronic Filing.

2

when Defendant’s counsel called to discuss the matter. (Ukeje Decl. ¶

4.) Plaintiffs’ counsel state: “upon said notice, . . . a telephonic

conference [was set up] with all interested parties. . . . [Counsel]

for Arrow Truck Sales volunteered to file the Joint Report.” (Id. at

¶¶ 5-6.) 

The court record reveals the December 19 Order was

electronically served on Plaintiffs at the email address Plaintiffs’

counsel identified in their declaration. (Ukeje Decl. ¶ 3.) This 1

record indicates Plaintiffs’ counsel was inattentive to the 

December 19 Order, and presumably could have ensured that a timely

status report was filed after Defendant’s counsel informed Plaintiffs

that it was due on March 6. Plaintiffs’ counsel state in their

declaration that they did not “wish[] to disobey the court order of

December 19, 2005.” (Id. at ¶ 8.) This suggests counsel’s position

is that sanctions can only be imposed under Rule 16(f) for purposeful

disobedience. But as the Ninth Circuit reveals in Ayers v. City of

Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1269-70 (9th Cir. 1990), a counsel's

negligent failure to be attentive to a Rule 16 scheduling or filing

date could be sanctionable conduct under Rule 16(f). Ayers upheld a

sanction imposed notwithstanding a lawyer’s explanation that he failed

to appear for a settlement conference because the date "slipped by

him.” See also Ikerd v. Lacy, 852 F.2d 1256, 1258-59 (10th Cir. 1988)

("Neither contumacious attitude nor chronic failure is a necessary

threshold to the imposition of sanctions under Rule 16 of the Fed. R.

Civ. P."); Martin Family Trust v. Neco-Nostalgia Entr. Co., 186 F.R.D.

Case 2:05-cv-02564-GEB -KJM Document 24 Filed 07/06/06 Page 2 of 4
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

601 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (finding plaintiff's attorney’s excuse that he

did not submit a status report because he was engaged in settlement

negotiations was insufficient to avoid sanctions under Rule 16(f)). 

Plaintiffs’ counsel also suggest the JSR was untimely

because “[counsel] for Arrow Truck Sales volunteered to file the Joint

Report.” (Ukeje Decl. ¶ 6.) This indicates Plaintiffs’ counsel have

the misapprehension that their personal responsibility to comply with

the timely filing requirement could be delegated to others. “It is

certainly understandable that attorneys frequently choose to delegate

[filing tasks]. But it should never be forgotten that the attorney of

record is ultimately responsible for [meeting prescribed filing

deadlines].” Dela Rosa v. Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc.,

136 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1998).

Failure to comply with a filing deadline concerns a matter

most critical to the court itself: management of its docket and

avoidance of unnecessary delays and proceedings caused by the failure

to comply with a Rule 16 requirement. Baker v. Rivair Flying Service,

744 F.2d 1438, 1441 (10th Cir. 1984); Newton v. A.C. & S., Inc., 918

F.2d 1121, 1126 (3d Cir. 1990) (“The purpose of the 1983 amendments to

Rule 16 was to make parties and their attorneys answerable to the

court . . . for actions or inactions thought to be responsible for the

heavy costs and delays of litigation in the federal courts.”)(internal

citation omitted). Further,

the trial judge has an independent responsibility to enforce

the directives he has laid down for the case. . . . Rules

are rules - and the parties must play by them. In the final

analysis, the judicial process depends heavily on the

judge's credibility. To ensure such credibility, a district

judge must often be firm in managing crowded dockets and

demanding adherence to announced deadlines. If he or she

sets a reasonable due date, parties should not be allowed

Case 2:05-cv-02564-GEB -KJM Document 24 Filed 07/06/06 Page 3 of 4
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 The total sanction is $250 for Plaintiffs’ counsel. 

4

casually to flout it or painlessly to escape the foreseeable

consequences of noncompliance.

Legault v. Zambrano, 105 F.3d 24, 28-29 (1st Cir. 1997), (citing

Mendez v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 900 F.2d 4, 7 (1st Cir.

1990)). "The cogs of the wheel of justice move much more smoothly

when attorneys who practice in this court follow the rules of practice

and procedure. . . ." Dela Rosa, 136 F.3d at 1244.

Since Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to file a timely status

report, and their response to the OSC is insufficient to avoid

imposition of a sanction, a sanction will be imposed. 

Therefore, Eloche P. Ukeje, and/or Anthony O. Egbase, and/or

Anthony O. Egbase & Associates, are sanctioned in the amount of TWO

HUNDRED AND FIFTY ($250.00) for failure to file a timely JSR. The 2

sanctions shall be paid to the Clerk of this Court within fifteen (15)

days from the date this Order is filed. The checks shall be made

payable to "Clerk, U.S. District Court." Proof of payment must be

sent to the undersigned judge's chambers within five (5) days of

payment. The sanctions are personal to counsel or their law firm and

are not to be transmitted to their respective clients. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02564-GEB -KJM Document 24 Filed 07/06/06 Page 4 of 4