Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00951/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00951-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GILBERT SALINAS, )

) 2:05-cv-00951-GEB-GGH

Plaintiff, )

) SANCTION ORDER AND ORDER

v. ) RESCHEDULING STATUS (PRETRIAL

) SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE

GABRIELA AGUIRRE; JOSE JESUS )

RODRIGUEZ, and DOES 1 through 10, )

inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

SANCTION

On August 17, 2005, an Order to Show Cause (“August 17 OSC”)

issued requiring Plaintiff to show cause “no later than 4:00 p.m. on

September 6, 2005, why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule

16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against counsel and/or

Plaintiff for the failure to file a timely status report, as ordered.” 

(August 17 OSC at 2.) The August 17 OSC also stated “The written

response shall state whether Plaintiff or [his] counsel is at fault

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

requested, it will be held on September 19, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., just

prior to the status conference, which is rescheduled to that date.” 

Case 2:05-cv-00951-GEB-GGH Document 14 Filed 09/16/05 Page 1 of 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 1 Plaintiff’s counsel also filed an untimely response to

the September 8 OSC.

2

(Id.) When no timely response to the August 17 OSC was received,

another OSC was filed on September 8, 2005 (“September 8 OSC”), in

which Plaintiff was ordered to show cause, “by filing a written

statement, not later than 12:00 noon on September 12, 2005, why the

Court should not dismiss this case for failure to prosecute.” (Sept.

8 OSC at 1.)

Plaintiff’s counsel filed an untimely response to the

August 17 OSC on September 13, 2005, in which Plaintiff’s counsel

stated “his failure to file a timely status report was due to simple

inadvertence or excusable neglect . . . [and that n]o hearing on this

is requested.”1 (Resp. to Aug. 17 OSC at 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel’s

response to the August 17 OSC misapprehends the standard which governs

when sanctions can be imposed for noncompliance with a Rule 16 filing

requirement. As the Ninth Circuit reveals in Ayers v. City of

Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1269-70 (9th Cir. 1990), counsel’s negligent

failure to be attentive to a scheduling date and filing deadline in a

Rule 16 Scheduling order is sanctionable conduct under Rule 16(f). 

Ayers upheld the imposition of sanctions where counsel failed to

appear for a settlement conference because the date “slipped by him.” 

Id. at 1270; see also Ikerd v. Lacy, 852 F.2d 1256, 1258-59 (10th Cir.

1988) (“Neither contumacious attitude nor chronic failure is a

necessary threshold to the imposition of sanctions [under Rule 16 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure].”); Martin Family Trust v. NecoNostalgia Enters. Co., 186 F.R.D. 601, 604 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (finding

Plaintiff's failure to submit a status report because it was engaged

in settlement negotiations to be sanctionable conduct). 

Case 2:05-cv-00951-GEB-GGH Document 14 Filed 09/16/05 Page 2 of 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

2 It is noted that two lawyers are listed on counsel’s

OSC response, and it is assumed that each listed counsel,

including other staff in the attorneys’ office, could have filed

the subject document on time or at least have timely sought a

continuance of the filing requirement if sufficient reason

existed for such a request.

3

Clearly, Plaintiff’s counsel’s conclusory assertions that

“his failure to file a timely status report was due to simple

inadvertence or excusable neglect” are woefully insufficient

explanations to justify or excuse his failure to file a timely status

report. These conclusory excuses appear to invite speculation about

whether counsel has devised a calendaring system that possesses

safeguards to avoid late filings.2

It is imperative for counsel “to focus some attention on the

importance of [filing documents on time] and of devising a system

which will avoid tardiness and complicating delays in the

administration of the business of the Court.” In re Allis, 531 F.2d

1391, 1393 (9th Cir. 1976). “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).

It is . . . no excuse for failing to comply with

[a court’s Rule 16 scheduling order] that

attorneys labor under the pressure of deadlines. 

Time is a precious luxury which, if not carefully

budgeted, can be a powerful foe. It is certainly

understandable that attorneys frequently choose to

delegate the physical preparation of [calendaring

Rule 16 filing deadlines] to paralegals or other

associates, leaving to them the task of reading

and complying with the applicable [deadline]. But

it should never be forgotten that the attorney of

record is ultimately responsible for [complying

with Rule 16 filing deadlines]. It is therefore

Case 2:05-cv-00951-GEB-GGH Document 14 Filed 09/16/05 Page 3 of 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 3 The total sanction is just $300.00, but counsel and/or

their law firm are jointly responsible for it.

4

the professional duty of the attorney of record to

ensure through proper supervision that [he or she

complies with the Rule 16 filing deadlines].

Dela Rosa v. Scottsdale Mem'l Health Sys., Inc., 136 F.3d 1241, 1244

(9th Cir. 1998).

Clearly judges should be expected to take action when Rule

16 filing deadlines are missed -- otherwise, a deadline ceases to be

meaningful and simply serves as a useless goal to be considered by

counsel when filing court documents. 

[The] trial judge has an independent

responsibility to enforce the directives he has

laid down for the case. . . . “Rules are rules –

and the parties must play by them. In the final

analysis, the judicial process depends heavily on

the judge’s credibility. To ensure such

credibility, a district judge must often be firm

in managing crowded dockets and demanding

adherence to announced deadlines. If he or she

sets a reasonable due date, parties should not be

allowed casually to flout it or painlessly to

escape the foreseeable consequences of

noncompliance.”

Legault v. Zambarano, 105 F.3d 24, 28-29 (1st Cir. 1997) (quoting

Mendez v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 900 F.2d 4, 7 (1st Cir.

1990)).

Since Plaintiff’s counsel’s response is insufficient to

avoid the imposition of sanctions, Mark D. Potter and/or Russell C.

Handy and/or Center for Disability Access, LLP, are sanctioned THREE

HUNDRED DOLLARS ($300.00) for their failure to timely comply with the

August 17 OSC.3 The sanctions shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court

of this District within fifteen (15) days from the date this Order is

filed. Proof of payment must be sent to the undersigned Judge's

Case 2:05-cv-00951-GEB-GGH Document 14 Filed 09/16/05 Page 4 of 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

4 The failure of one or more of the parties to

participate in the preparation of the joint status report does

not excuse the other parties from their obligation to timely file

a status report in accordance with this Order. In the event a

party fails to participate as ordered, the party timely

submitting the status report shall include a declaration

explaining why it was unable to obtain the cooperation of the

other party or parties.

5

chambers within five (5) days of payment. The sanctions are personal

to each attorney, are to be borne by each attorney or the attorney's

law firm personally, and are not to be transmitted to either

attorney’s client by way of a charge for attorney’s fees and/or costs.

RESCHEDULING STATUS CONFERENCE

Lastly, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference,

currently scheduled for hearing on September 19, 2005, is rescheduled

for hearing on December 12, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. A joint status report

shall be filed no later than November 28, 2005.4 Plaintiff is

directed to serve a copy of this Order on each Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00951-GEB-GGH Document 14 Filed 09/16/05 Page 5 of 5