Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03185/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03185-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assualt,Slander

---

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

JOSHUA JACOBY; TECH LOGISTICS )

GROUP, INC. ) 2:09-cv-03185-GEB-KJN

)

Plaintiffs, )

) ORDER IMPOSING SANCTION, RULE

v. ) 4(M) NOTICE, CONTINUING

) STATUS CONFERENCE

ROBERTA ROBINS, aka ROBIN ROBINS; )

TECHNOLOGY MARKETING TOOLKIT, INC.,)

) 

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiffs and their counsel were issued an Order to Show

Cause on March 11, 2010, (“March 11 OSC”) which required them to

explain why sanctions should not be imposed because of Plaintiffs’

failure to file a timely status report. Since no timely status report

was filed, the status conference was rescheduled to April 12, 2010,

and Plaintiffs were required to file a status report no later than

fourteen days prior to the April 12 status conference. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel responded to the March 11 OSC, but did

not file a status report prior to the April 12, 2010, status

conference, as required by the March 11 OSC. Plaintiffs’ counsel

states in the response to the March 11 OSC that Defendants filed a

suit against Plaintiffs in Tennessee and that “[i]n light of the fact

that the Tennessee action is required to proceed, and embraces

essentially the same factual issues [as this case,] [Plaintiffs’

counsel is] considering dismissing this Federal Court action as being

duplicative.” Further, Plaintiffs’ counsel states “settlement

discussions have commenced between the parties, which, if successful,

would involve the dismissal of both cases.” Plaintiffs’ counsel also

Case 2:09-cv-03185-GEB-KJN Document 10 Filed 04/09/10 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

2

explains that he “did not file the [status report] which triggered the

Court’s OSC here because the case is not yet at issue, the

[D]efendants have not appeared, and [he] believe[s] the matter may be

resolved by dismissal, at least as to this action.” Lastly,

Plaintiffs’ counsel “request[s] that the Court not impose any

sanctions, and further request[s] that the Court allow a short period

of time to enable the possible settlement and/or dismissal to take

place.” 

Plaintiffs’ counsel is mistaken about his obligation to 

apprise the court of the status of this case in a timely filed status

report, as required by an order scheduling a status conference and a

status report. Counsel’s response indicates he does not understand

his “obligation to strictly comply with a filing deadline prescribed

in a Rule 16 order.” Martin Family Trust v. Heco/Nostalgia

Enterprises Co.,186 F.R.D. 601, 602 (E.D.Cal. 1999). It is evident

that counsel elected to explain something about the status of the case

in response to an OSC; however, it is mystifying why counsel concluded

he was justified in disregarding status report filing deadlines. If

counsel desired to seek a continuance of the status conference and

status report filing deadline, counsel should have filed a timely

request for a continuance. That request could have included what

counsel explained in response to the OSC, and to what approximate date

counsel desired to have a status hearing scheduled. Absent such

scheduling, a case has the potential to remain pending in federal

court indefinitely. 

“[W]e expect an attorney practicing law in federal court to

become familiar with and follow rules applicable to practice in this

court. Dela Rosa v. Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc., 136 F.3d

Case 2:09-cv-03185-GEB-KJN Document 10 Filed 04/09/10 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

1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1998). “Calendars are simply too crowded for

parties to treat scheduling orders as optional and to conduct trial

preparations at their own convenience.” Robson v. Hallenbeck,81 F.3d

1, 4(1st Cir. 1996). “A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of

paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel

without peril . . . . Disregard of the order would undermine the

court’s ability to control its docket . . . and reward the indolent

and the cavalier.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. 975 F.2d 604,

610 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citation and quotations omitted); see

also Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1270 (9th Cir. 1990)

(affirming sanction of lawyer for failure to attend a settlement

conference because “the date ‘slipped by him’”) (emphasis added). 

“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 counsel’s excuse for that failure is insufficient to avoid

a sanction, Plaintiffs’ attorney Gerald William Filice and/or Filice

Law Offices is sanctioned three hundred and fifty dollars ($350.00). 

This sanction shall be paid to the Clerk of this Court within ten (10)

days from the date on which this Order is filed by a check made

payable to the “United States Treasury.” Proof of payment shall be

filed within five (5) days of payment. This sanction is personal to

counsel or his law firm and shall not be transmitted to counsel’s

clients.

Further, Plaintiffs are notified under Rule 4(m) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that any defendant not served with

process within the 120 day period prescribed in that Rule, may be

Case 2:09-cv-03185-GEB-KJN Document 10 Filed 04/09/10 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

4

dismissed unless Plaintiffs provide proof of service or “show[] good

cause for the failure” to serve a defendant within this prescribed

period in a filing due no later than 4:00 p.m. on April 15, 2010.

Lastly, due to Plaintiffs’ failure to file a status report 

and to Plaintiffs’ apparent failure timely serve all defendants, the

status conference scheduled for April 12, 2010, is continued to June

14, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. A joint status report shall be filed no later

than fourteen days prior to the status conference. 

Dated: April 8, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:09-cv-03185-GEB-KJN Document 10 Filed 04/09/10 Page 4 of 4