Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03609/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03609-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Breach of Contract

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

M.O.R.E., LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-03609-JST 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS

Re: ECF Nos. 69, 72

I. BACKGROUND

This quiet title and wrongful levy action was filed on July 11, 2012. ECF No. 1. One of 

the plaintiffs, Mark Ottovich, currently represents himself in the action. ECF Nos. 51, 54.

On March 12, 2014, mail sent to Ottovich was returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 63. As 

a result, on July 17, 2014, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why Ottovich’s complaint 

should not be stricken pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-11, which requires parties to notify the Court 

of any change in address.

1

 ECF No. 65. In the order to show cause, the Court also continued the 

case management conference scheduled for July 23, 2014 to Wednesday, December 3, 2014, and 

advised Ottovich that if he filed a Notice of Change of Address within thirty days of the date of 

the order, the order to show cause would be vacated. ECF No. 65.

Plaintiff neither filed a change of address nor responded to the order to show cause. 

Instead, on December 1, 2014, he filed an individual case management statement, which was 

twelve days late, and lacking some of the information required by the Court, such as a proposed 

 

1 Under Rule 3-11, if mail sent to a pro se party is returned as undeliverable, and the Court does 

not receive within sixty days of the return a written communication from the pro se party 

indicating a current address, “[t]he Court may, without prejudice, dismiss [the party’s] complaint . 

. . .” Civ. L.R. 3-11(b).

Case 3:12-cv-03609-JST Document 76 Filed 02/11/15 Page 1 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

case schedule. ECF No. 67; see Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of 

California: Contents of Case Management Statement, available at 

http://cand.uscourts.gov/jstorders. It was evident that Ottovich had made no effort to confer with 

opposing counsel regarding the matters addressed by his statement, although he was under order to 

do so. See Standing Order for All Civil Cases Before District Judge Jon S. Tigar (“Failure to meet 

and confer regarding the required topics prior to the initial case management conference . . . may, 

in the reasonable exercise of the Court’s discretion, result in sanctions or disciplinary action.”), 

available at http://cand.uscourts.gov/jstorders. 

The Court held the December 3, 2014 case management conference as scheduled, but

Ottovich failed to appear at the conference. ECF No. 68. 

Because Ottovich failed to appear at the December 3, 2014 case management conference, 

the Court issued another order to show cause why the Court should not impose monetary sanctions 

for his failure to appear. ECF No. 69. The Court set another order to show cause hearing, to occur 

simultaneously with a January 28, 2015 case management conference, and ordered Ottovich to file 

a response to the order to show cause by January 9, 2015. Id.

Ottovich filed a response to the OSC, claiming that (1) he was not feeling well on

December 3 ‒ in particular, that he has prostate-health issues and poor memory; (2) he is a 

veteran; (3) he relied on the other plaintiffs’ counsel, Randal Schmidt’s, ability to represent his 

interests at the conference; and (4) Schmidt failed to remind him to appear in court. ECF No. 70. 

Ottovich further explained that he “was ‘surprised’ by his sudden illness on the day of December 9

[sic], 2014,” and that Schmidt was “his legal and recognized representative” who could have 

represented his interests at the hearing. Id. Ottovich claimed that both of these reasons excused 

his failure to appear pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). Id. 

On January 28, 2015, the Court held the combined order to show cause hearing/case 

management conference. ECF No. 72. Ottovich again failed to appear at the hearing and did not 

notify the Court ahead of time or otherwise explain his absence. He has no further communication 

with the court since the hearing, other than to file a motion for permission for electronic case filing 

on behalf of another plaintiff. ECF No. 73. 

Case 3:12-cv-03609-JST Document 76 Filed 02/11/15 Page 2 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that, on its own motion, “the 

court may issue any just orders . . . if a party or its attorney: (A) fails to appear at a scheduling or 

other pretrial conference; . . . or (C) fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.” Because 

the purpose of the rule is “to encourage forceful judicial management,” a court has broad 

discretion to sanction attorneys and parties who fail to comply with the court’s reasonable case 

management orders. Alutiq Int’l Solutions, LLC v. Lyons, No. 2:11-cv-01104-GMN-PAL, 2012 

WL 7801695, at *3 (D. Nev. Sep. 18, 2012) (citing Sherman v. United States, 801 F.2d 1133, 

1135 (9th Cir. 1986). Rule 16 authorizes the court to impose the sanctions permitted by Rule 37 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which include dismissal of an action in whole or in part, 

and the payment of expenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v), (B); see also Rule 3-9 (“Sanctions 

(including default or dismissal) may be imposed for failure to comply with local rules.”). 

Moreover, federal courts have inherent power to impose monetary or other sanctions in 

order to control the conduct of the proceedings, protect the “orderly administration of justice” and 

to maintain “the authority and dignity of the court.” Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 

752, 764-67 (1980) (citations omitted). Such sanctions can be imposed for bad faith or willful 

disobedience of a court order, after a litigant has been given notice and an opportunity to be heard. 

Id.

III. ANALYSIS

Rule 16 expressly permits the imposition of monetary or other sanctions when a party fails 

to appear at a court-ordered conference, or otherwise fails to obey with a pretrial order. There is 

no dispute that Ottovich did not attend the December 3, 2014 conference, as he was ordered to do, 

and no dispute that he also did not file an updated address with the court. Thus, under Rule 16, the 

Court may levy reasonable sanctions against Ottovich.

The Court also has the inherent power to impose sanctions in order to compel compliance 

with court orders, control the proceedings, and to ensure that the authority and dignity of the court 

is maintained. A party may not simultaneously invoke the Court’s power in an attempt to get 

relief, while flouting the orders and rules of the Court. 

Case 3:12-cv-03609-JST Document 76 Filed 02/11/15 Page 3 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In considering Ottovich’s response to the order to show cause, the Court evaluates his 

credibility in light of his subsequent, repeated failure to appear in the case, as well as his conduct 

in other cases in this district. Numerous other judges have sanctioned Ottovich for his failure to 

appear in court and at depositions, and to otherwise comply with court orders. Those sanctions 

have included monetary sanctions and the termination of at least two of his cases. See Case No. C 

10-02842 WHA, ECF Nos. 46 (order to show cause why case should not be dismissed for failure 

to prosecute), 111 (order to show cause resulting from Ottovich’s and others’ failure to appear as 

ordered at settlement conferences), 113 (order recommending sanction of dismissal of action), 114 

(minute entry for show-cause hearing where Ottovich, among others, ordered to pay $1,200 in

sanctions), 146 (order dismissing Ottovich’s action for failure to prosecute and to obey reasonable 

court orders); Case No. 11-cv-1793-JSW, ECF Nos. 33 (motion for sanctions in the amount of 

$500 per day that Ottovich failed to comply with IRS summons, or in the alternative, for 

Ottovich’s confinement), 39 (minutes of hearing for which Ottovich failed to appear), 40 (second 

motion for sanctions of $500 per day as a result of Ottovich’s failure to comply with IRS 

summons for more than a year), 48 (order requiring Ottovich to pay $500 in sanctions per day of 

non-compliance with IRS summons); 81 (order imposing $7,500 fine against Ottovich for his 

failure to comply with IRS summons); Case No. 3:09-cv-4181-MMC, ECF Nos. 96 (motion for 

sanctions against Ottovich for his failure to appear at five noticed depositions; proposed sanctions 

including dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint and/or payment of attorneys’ fees), 98 (order granting 

in part motion for sanctions and ordering Ottovich to pay $1,960 in attorneys’ fees), 103 (motion 

to dismiss Ottovich’s action for failure to pay court-ordered sanctions), 111 (order to show cause 

why Ottovich’s complaint should not be dismissed or other sanctions imposed as a result of 

Ottovich’s failure to appear at a case management conference), 134 (order denying Ottovich’s 

motion for the court to reconsider its sanctions order), 143 (motion to dismiss Ottovich’s action 

based on his failure to comply with discovery, including his failure to appear for a deposition as 

ordered), 154 (order granting motion to dismiss). 

Turning to Ottovich’s response, the Court finds unconvincing Ottovich’s assertion that the 

types of health issues he identified in his response to the order to show cause could have surprised 

Case 3:12-cv-03609-JST Document 76 Filed 02/11/15 Page 4 of 6
5

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

Northern District of California

him in such a way that he could not appear or notify the Court or the other parties that he would 

not appear at the December 3 hearing. Further, as evidenced by Schmidt’s request to withdraw as 

counsel for Ottovich, ECF No. 51, and the Court’s order granting that request, ECF No. 54, 

Schmidt was decidedly not Ottovich’s “legal and recognized representative” any longer. Ottovich 

could not rely on Schmidt to represent his interests or remind him to appear in court. In sum, the 

Court finds that Ottovich’s explanation for his failure to appear is neither adequate nor credible. 

This is compounded by the fact that Ottovich once again failed to appear before the Court as 

ordered—this time for the January 28, 2015 case management conference and hearing on the order

to show cause. ECF No. 72. Ottovich has not explained his failure to appear on that date.

Given Ottovich’s incredible explanation for his failure to appear before this Court, his

disregard for the Court’s orders, and his behavior before other judges in this district, the Court can 

only come to one conclusion: Mark Ottovich’s failure to appear on December 3, 2014 was willful. 

Accordingly, the Court will sanction Ottovich in the amount of $500 for that failure to appear and 

to follow court orders.

The Court also ORDERS MARK OTTOVICH TO SHOW CAUSE why further sanctions 

should not be imposed for his failure to appear in court on January 28, 2015. The Court advises 

Ottovich that sanctions, if imposed, may include dismissal of his claims. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court hereby sanctions Mark Ottovich in the amount 

of $500.00, pursuant to Federal Rule 16(f) and the Court’s inherent authority. He is ordered to 

pay $500.00 to the “Clerk, U.S. District Court” by no later than March 11, 2015. Ottovich shall 

file proof of payment within five days of payment.

The Court further orders Ottovich to file a response to this Order to Show Cause within 10 

days of the date of this order. If he fails to do so, or if his explanation for his failure to appear in 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:12-cv-03609-JST Document 76 Filed 02/11/15 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Northern District of California

court on January 28, 2015 is inadequate, the Court may impose further sanctions; such sanctions 

may include dismissal of his claims in this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-03609-JST Document 76 Filed 02/11/15 Page 6 of 6