Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01848/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01848-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:2410 Quiet Title

---

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

ALEXANDER KUZKO and LIDIYA

KUZKO,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE

CORPORATION, a District of 

Columbia corporation; J.P. 

MORGAN CHASE BANK, a national 

association; ALL PERSONS 

UNKNOWN, claiming any legal

or equitable right, title, 

estate, lien, or interest in 

the property described in the

complaint adverse to 

plaintiff’s title, or any

cloud upon plaintiff’s title 

thereto; and DOES 1-25, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-01848-GEB-AC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE

Plaintiffs stated in their Status Report filed October 

21, 2015, that “[a]ll known defendants have been served[,]” and 

“[a]s of the date of this status report[,] no defendant has 

appeared in the matter.” (Pls.’ Status Report 1:19-20, ECF No. 

6.) However, Plaintiffs did not indicate in the Status Report how 

they intend to prosecute the action other than stating generally 

that “Plaintiffs likely will move for default as to Chase Bank.”

Case 2:15-cv-01848-TLN-AC Document 10 Filed 12/03/15 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

2

(Id. at 2:1-2.) 

Therefore, an order issued on November 6, 2015, which 

continued the status conference to December 7, 2015, and required 

the parties to file a joint status report no later than fourteen 

(14) days prior to the scheduling conference, in which Plaintiffs 

were ordered “[to] address their efforts to prosecute this case 

against each named Defendant.” (Order 2:4-7, ECF No. 7.) Although 

Plaintiffs filed a status report on November 6, 2015, they failed 

to address therein their efforts to prosecute this case, as 

ordered. 

Therefore, Plaintiffs are Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”) 

in a writing to be filed no later than December 14, 2015, why 

sanctions should not be imposed against them and/or their counsel 

for their failure “to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(c). The written response shall state 

whether Plaintiffs or their counsel are at fault, and whether a 

hearing is requested on the OSC.1 If a hearing is requested, it 

will be held on February 1, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., just prior to the 

status conference, which is rescheduled to that date and time. 

A joint status report shall be filed no later than 

fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference, in which 

Plaintiffs shall address their efforts to prosecute this case 

against each named Defendant. Plaintiffs are notified that each 

named Defendant and/or this action may be dismissed with 

 

1 “If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the impact of 

sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the clients, that is where 

the impact of the sanction should be lodged.” In re Sanction of Baker, 744 

F.2d 1438, 1442 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1014 (1985). 

Sometimes the faults of attorneys, and their consequences, are visited upon 

clients. Myers v. Shekter (In re Hill), 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985).

Case 2:15-cv-01848-TLN-AC Document 10 Filed 12/03/15 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

prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) if 

Plaintiffs fail to prosecute their claim or claims against either 

or both named Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-01848-TLN-AC Document 10 Filed 12/03/15 Page 3 of 3