Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02564/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02564-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Default

---

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

This caption has been amended according to the Order 1

filed on March 15, 2006, dismissing National Truck Protection

Co., Inc., from this action.

As the Order states: 2

The failure of one or more of the parties to

participate in the preparation of the Joint

(continued...)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUSTIN SINGH and RANJIT SINGH, ) 

) 2:05-cv-2564-GEB-KJM 

Plaintiffs, )

) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v. ) AND CONTINUING STATUS

) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

ARROW TRUCK SALES, INC.; and ) CONFERENCE

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

1

)

The December 19, 2005, Order Setting Status (Pretrial

Scheduling) Conference (“December 19 Order”) scheduled a status

conference in this case for March 20, 2006, and required the parties

to file a joint status report (“JSR”) no later than fourteen days

prior to the scheduling conference. The Order further required that a

status report be filed regardless of whether a JSR could be procured.2

Case 2:05-cv-02564-GEB -KJM Document 20 Filed 03/16/06 Page 1 of 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

(...continued) 2

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. 

December 19 Order at 2 n. 1.

As prescribed in the December 19 Order, Plaintiffs were 3

required to serve Defendants with a copy of the December 19 Order

“[c]oncurrently with the service of process, or as soon

thereafter as possible . . . .” December 19 Order at 1.

“If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the 4

impact of sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the

clients, that is where the impact of the sanction should be

lodged.” Matter of Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1442 (10th

Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1014 (1985). Sometimes the

faults of attorneys, and their consequences, are visited upon

clients. In re Hill, 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985).

2

The parties filed an untimely JSR on March 13, 2006, in which

Defendants state they were not served with a copy of the December 19

Order until March 6, 2006. 

Plaintiffs are Ordered to Show Cause (OSC) no later than

4:00 p.m. on March 27, 2006, why sanctions should not be imposed

against Plaintiffs and/or their counsel for the failure to file a

timely status report, and for the failure to timely serve Defendants

with a copy of the December 19 Order under Rule 16(f) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. The written response shall state whether 3

Plaintiffs or their counsel is at fault and whether a hearing is

requested on the OSC. If a hearing is requested, it will be held on 4

April 17, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., just prior to the status conference,

which is rescheduled to that date. 

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02564-GEB -KJM Document 20 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 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

3

In accordance with the requirements set forth in the

December 19 Order, the parties shall file a JSR no later than April 3,

2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02564-GEB -KJM Document 20 Filed 03/16/06 Page 3 of 3