Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00285/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00285-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:2410 Quiet Title

---

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

CHICAGO TITLE CO., CASE NO. CV F 07-285 LJO DLB

Plaintiff, ORDER AFTER HEARING ON ORDER TO

vs. SHOW CAUSE; SANCTIONS AGAINST

EDWARD RUSSELL FOR $10,000.00

CECIL MORRIS, et al.

Defendants.

 /

On September 10, 2007, this Court issued an order to show cause for attorney Edward Russell’s

failure to register for the Court’s electronic filing system. (See Local Rule 5-135.) The September 10,

2007 order to show cause set a hearing date for September 25, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 4 of this

Court and required Attorney Russell to personally appear. Attorney Russell failed to appear at the

hearing on the order to show cause.

Previously, on August 6, 2007, attorney Russell was given notice by the Clerk of this Court

directing him to register for the Court’s electronic filing system. Again on August 20, 2007, this Court

ordered Attorney Russell to show cause in writing no later than August 27, 2007 why sanctions should

not be imposed for failing to register. AttorneyRussell failed to comply with either of this orders, failed

to comply with the September 10, 2007 order, and failed to appear at the order to show cause hearing.

All orders were served by first class mail to the address for Attorney Russell on file with this Court.

(Local Rule 83-182 (attorneys are under a continuing duty to notifythe Court of any change of address).)

There is no indication that the mail was not received.

Case 1:07-cv-00285-LJO-DLB Document 38 Filed 09/27/07 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

This Court’s Local Rule 11-110 provides that “. . . failure of counsel or of a party to comply with

these Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have inherent power to

control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where

appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986),

cert. denied, 479 U.S. 829 (1986). This Court has a duty to supervise the conduct of attorneys appearing

before it. Erickson v. Newmar Corp., 87 F.3d 298, 301 (9 Cir. 1996). The determination to sanction th

is subject to a court’s sound discretion. See Dahl v. City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 367 (9 Cir. th

1996). This Court’s Local Rule 83-184(a) addresses attorney discipline and provides:

In the event any attorney subject to these Rules engages in conduct that may

warrant discipline or other sanctions, any Judge or Magistrate Judge may initiate

proceedings for contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 42, or may, after

reasonable notice and opportunity to show cause to the contrary, take any other

appropriate disciplinary action against the attorney. In addition to or in lieu of the

foregoing, the Judge or Magistrate Judge may refer the matter to the disciplinary body

of any Court before which the attorney has been admitted to practice.

Here, Attorney Russell has ignored multiple Court orders directing him to perform specific

action. Accordingly, this Court finds that Attorney Russell is sanctioned in the amount of $10,000.00

(ten thousand) payable to the Court within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. Should Attorney

Russell fail to pay the sanctions within the time allotted, this Court will issue an Order to Show Cause

re Contempt.

In addition, theCourt finds it appropriate to sanction Chicago Title by denying Chicago Title any

recovery of attorneys fees and/or costs related to the filing and prosecuting of this interpleader action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00285-LJO-DLB Document 38 Filed 09/27/07 Page 2 of 2