Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01909/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01909-1/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

----oo0oo----

LARRY FEEZOR,

NO. CIV. 2:09-1909 WBS CMK

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: SANCTIONS

v.

BIG 5 CORP., d/b/a BIG 5

SPORTING GOODS #247,

Defendant. /

----oo0oo----

 In its Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling)

Conference issued on July 14, 2009, the court unequivocally

instructed all non-governmental corporate parties to include

corporate disclosures in the parties’ Joint Status Report: 

Pursuant to Local Rule 16-240, the parties shall submit

to the court a JOINT Status Report fourteen (14) calendar

days prior to the hearing date, which shall contain: . .

. (m) a statement by any nongovernmental corporate party

identifying all of its parent and subsidiary corporations

and listing any publicly held company that owns 10% or

more of the party’s stock. If any nongovernmental

corporate party has no parent or subsidiary corporations

or no publicly held companies owning 10% or more of its

Case 2:09-cv-01909-WBS-CMK Document 17 Filed 01/15/10 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

2

stock, it shall so state in the Joint Status Report.

Thereafter, if there is any change in the information,

the party shall file and serve a supplemental statement

within a reasonable time after such change occurs. 

(Docket No. 6.)

In so instructing, the court emphasized the importance

of corporate disclosures and warned that failure to comply with

the court’s Order could warrant sanctions:

The purpose of the corporate disclosure requirement in

subpart (m) of this Order is to assist the court in

carrying out this obligation, because corporate parties

are in the best position to identify their parent and

subsidiary corporations. Without this information, the

court risks retaining a case in which it unknowingly has

a financial interest. As a consequence, not only would

the undersigned judge face public criticism, the public’s

confidence in an impartial judiciary would be eroded.

Failure to assist the court in protecting these and the

other interests advanced by § 455(b)(4)--especially in

the face of a clear and direct request from the

court--amounts to sanctionable conduct. 

(Id.; see also id. (“Failure to comply with the requirements of

this subpart will result in the Joint Status Report being

stricken and sanctions being ordered against any nongovernmental

corporate party that did not submit its corporate disclosures.”)

(emphasis in original).) The court also clarified that, “the

requirement that corporate disclosures be included in the

parties’ Joint Status Report does not negate a nongovernmental

corporate party’s obligation to file a disclosure statement ‘with

its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or

other request addressed to the court’ pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 7.1.” (Id.)

The court again reiterated these requirements in a

Minute Order issued on November 12, 2009, which noted that

defendant Big 5 Corp. (“Big 5”) had not filed a corporate

Case 2:09-cv-01909-WBS-CMK Document 17 Filed 01/15/10 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

3

disclosure statement in either the parties’ Joint Status Report

or separately in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

7.1, and required any corporate party to this action to file a

corporate disclosure by November 30, 2009. (Docket No. 12.) Big

5 subsequently failed to file any corporate disclosures by the

November 30, 2009 deadline.

On December 10, 2009, the court issued an Order to Show

Cause ordering that defendant should either pay $150.00 in

sanctions to the clerk of the court or submit a statement of good

cause for defendant’s failure to supply its corporate disclosures

by December 20, 2009. (Docket No. 13.) Defendant neither paid

the sanctions nor submitted any statement of good cause by that

date. Instead, on January 14, 2010, defendant’s counsel finally

submitted defendant’s corporate disclosure along with a statement

contending that plaintiff’s counsel prepared the parties’ Joint

Status Report and that defense counsel was unaware of the court’s

corporate disclosure requirements. (See Docket No. 16.) 

Defendant’s counsel also claimed that she believed plaintiff

filed a Notice of Settlement that made the need for defendant’s

disclosure statement moot. (Id.)

Defendant’s failure to comply with this court’s orders

is unacceptable. First, defendant’s statement of January 14,

2010 is untimely because it was filed approximately three weeks

after the deadline to show good cause had passed. Second,

defendant’s statement does not demonstrate good cause for its

failure to timely file corporate disclosures with the court. The

filing of a notice of settlement and removal of the joint status

conference from the court’s calendar did not relieve defendant of

Case 2:09-cv-01909-WBS-CMK Document 17 Filed 01/15/10 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

4

its obligation to file corporate disclosures. Under 28 U.S.C. §

455(b)(4), a judge must recuse himself altogether from any case

in which he owns stock in a corporate party or in a parent

corporation of a corporate subsidiary party. Without defendant’s

corporate disclosure information, the court could not so much as

sign a dismissal order, let alone approve a settlement agreement,

without potentially running afoul of § 455(b)(4). Even if

defendant believed that plaintiff was filing a notice of

settlement with the court, its corporate disclosures remained

essential to the ability of the court to make any rulings in this

case or even keep the case on its docket. Defendant’s has

therefore failed to show good cause for its failure to submit

corporate disclosures to the court.

A district court has the authority under to impose

sanctions for even unintentional or negligent noncompliance with

the court’s pretrial orders. See, e.g., Lucas Auto. Eng’g, Inc.

v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 275 F.3d 762, 769 (9th Cir. 2001)

(upholding Rule 16 sanctions imposed on a party for

unintentionally failing to attend a scheduled mediation due to an

incapacitating headache); Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d

1267, 1270 (9th Cir. 1990) (upholding a district court's

sanctions under Rule 16(f) where counsel failed to appear for a

settlement conference because the date “slipped by him”); Mt.

Shasta Title & Escrow Co. v. Pennbrook Homes, No. 07-963, 2007 WL

4210478, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2007) (Burrell, J.)

(sanctioning counsel $200 for mistakenly filing an inaccurate

status report indicating that a party had been served). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s counsel shall

Case 2:09-cv-01909-WBS-CMK Document 17 Filed 01/15/10 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

5

pay sanctions of $150.00 to the clerk of the court before this

case may be dismissed.

DATED: January 15, 2010

Case 2:09-cv-01909-WBS-CMK Document 17 Filed 01/15/10 Page 5 of 5