Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01931/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01931-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On July 30, 2013, the Court issued its “Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference,” 

which “ordered that [the parties] appear for a formal Scheduling Conference...” (Doc. 13 at 1) The 

Court explained: “Attendance at the Scheduling Conference is mandatory upon each party not 

represented by counsel or, alternatively, by retained counsel.” (Id. at 2, emphasis in original.) Beacuse 

Plaintiff Larcenia Taylor failed to appear at the Scheduling Conference held on May 15, 2014, the 

Court issued an Order to Show Cause why sanctions should not be imposed. (Doc. 29.)

On May 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a timely response, asserting that she “had no idea” that she 

was responsible for making arrangements to appear telephonically at the conference, and was unaware 

that the defendant’s arrangement to appear via CourtCall was not applicable to Plaintiff. (Doc. 32.) 

She reports that she waited by her phone at 9:00 a.m. in anticipation of the Court calling her for the 

conference. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff asserts that she was “shocked and hurt” when she contacted the Court 

shortly after the conference and “was informed that the conference was over.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts 

LARCENIA TAYLOR,

 Plaintiff,

v.

REBECCA BLANK, Acting SecretaryUnited States Department of Commerce,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01931 -AWI - JLT 

ORDER DISCHARGING THE ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE DATED May 15, 2014 (Doc. 29)

Case 1:12-cv-01931-AWI-JLT Document 33 Filed 05/30/14 Page 1 of 2
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

that “she will not repeatedly make the same mistake intentionally and prays the court will have an 

understanding of her situation at the time.” (Id.)

Given the response provided by Plaintiff, it is clear that she was prepared to attend the Court’s 

Scheduling Conference, but misunderstood her responsibility to not only request a telephonic 

appearance, but to her own arrangements to appear telephonically and confirm the arrangement with 

the Court. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Order to Show Cause dated May 15, 2014 (Doc. 29) is DISCHARGED; and

2. Plaintiff is reminded that failure to appear at any future hearing may result in the 

imposition of sanctions pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 30, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01931-AWI-JLT Document 33 Filed 05/30/14 Page 2 of 2