Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01484/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01484-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHIU LIN, in his individual 

and representative capacity 

as Trustee, Kuo & Chiu Lin 

Family Trust,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-01484-GEB-DAD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

The Final Pretrial Order filed on June 17, 2015, 

required the parties to file the following documents fifteen (15) 

court days prior to the trial commencement date: an agreed 

statement to be read to the jury during voir dire, jury 

instructions, proposed voir dire, a verdict form, and proposed 

findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning Plaintiff’s 

request for injunctive relief. To date, these documents have not

been filed.

Therefore, the parties are Ordered to Show Cause 

(“OSC”) in a writing to be filed no later than 12:00 p.m. on 

August 14, 2015, why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule 

16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the failure to 

timely file these pretrial documents as ordered. Sanctions could 

include dismissal of the action and/or an issue preclusion order. 

Case 2:13-cv-01484-GEB-DB Document 31 Filed 08/12/15 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

The written response shall state whether counsel or the client(s)

are at fault and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC.1 If 

a hearing is requested, it will be held at 9:00 a.m. on August 

24, 2015. 

Further, the referenced trial documents shall be filed 

as soon as possible, but in any event, no later than 12:00 p.m. 

on August 19, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2015

 

1 “If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the impact of 

sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the clients, that is where 

the impact of the sanction should be lodged.” In re 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. Myers v. Shekter (In re Hill), 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985).

Case 2:13-cv-01484-GEB-DB Document 31 Filed 08/12/15 Page 2 of 2