Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01520/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01520-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORA LAVERY-PETRASH,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SIERRA NEVADA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,

JAMES (JIM) HEARD, DAVID

WITTHAUS, ARTHUR DEWSON,

ANNALISE O’CONNOR, and DOES

1-50, inclusive,

 Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:11-cv-01520-GEB-DAD

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE

An order issued on May 29, 2013, directing Plaintiff’s former

counsel, Sharon Lapin, to show cause “in a writing to be filed no later

than June 3, 2013, why she should not be sanctioned five hundred dollars

($500.00) for failing to comply with Local Rules 180(c) and 184(b). (ECF

No. 59.) Ms. Lapin responded to the OSC in a June 3, 2013 filing,

essentially stating that her “failure to notify this court promptly of

[her] change in status” was caused by her unfamiliarity with the

referenced Local Rules, “and was not deliberate.” (Resp. to OSC, ECF No.

60.) 

Although Ms. Lapin’s response reveals she could be sanctioned,

since “[a]ttorneys practicing in a federal district court are charged

with knowledge of the local rules,” the undersigned judge will not

impose a sanction this time. Brown v. Savage, No. CV-08-382-N-EJL, 2011

WL 4584771, at *4 (D. Idaho Sept. 30, 2011); see also Dela Rosa v.

1

Case 2:11-cv-01520-GEB-DAD Document 62 Filed 06/06/13 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

Scottsdale Mem’l Health Sys., Inc., 136 F.3d 1241, 1244 (“[W]e expect an

attorney practicing law in federal court to become familiar with and

follow rules applicable to practice in this court. . . . Such behavior

is not only a mark of elementary professional competence, but is common

sense to attorneys seeking to zealously represent the interests of their

clients.”). 

Therefore, Ms. Lapin’s request for “oral argument” is

unnecessary, and no hearing is scheduled.

Dated: June 6, 2013

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

Senior United States District Judge

2

Case 2:11-cv-01520-GEB-DAD Document 62 Filed 06/06/13 Page 2 of 2