Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01848/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01848-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

Scott Johnson,,

Plaintiff,

v.

Balbir S. Ojla, Mohan K. 

Gill, Ashwani K. Karma,

Indra D. Sharma, and Does 1-

10,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-01848-GEB-CKD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE; FED. R. 

CIV. P. 4(M) NOTICE

The August 6, 2014 Order Setting Status (Pretrial 

Scheduling) Conference scheduled a status conference in this case 

on November 10, 2014, and required the parties to file a joint 

status report no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the 

scheduling conference. The August 6, 2014 Order further required

a status report be filed regardless of whether a joint report 

could be procured. No status report was filed as ordered.

Therefore, Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”) 

in a writing to be filed no later than November 14, 2014, why 

sanctions should not be imposed against him and/or his counsel 

under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for 

failure to file a timely status report. The written response 

shall also state whether Plaintiff or his counsel is at fault, 

Case 2:14-cv-01848-GEB-CKD Document 11 Filed 11/07/14 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

and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC.1 If a hearing is 

requested, it will be held on April 20, 2015, 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. 

Further, Plaintiff is notified under Rule 4(m) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that failure to serve Defendants

Balbir S. Ojla, Mohan K. Gill, Ashwani K. Karma, and Indra D. 

Sharma with process within the 120 day period prescribed in that 

Rule may result in the unserved defendants and/or this case being 

dismissed. To avoid dismissal, on or before March 6, 2015, 

Plaintiff shall file proof of service for these defendants or a 

sufficient explanation why service was not completed within Rule 

4(m)’s prescribed service period.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2014

 

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 2:14-cv-01848-GEB-CKD Document 11 Filed 11/07/14 Page 2 of 2