Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05411/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05411-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

*E-filed 12/20/06* 

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARIA VALENCIA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BY THE BAY INVESTMENTS, INC., et al,

Defendants. /

No. C05-05411 HRL

ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE AND IMPOSING

SANCTIONS, (2) SETTING FURTHER

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE,

AND (3) REQUIRING ASSOCIATED

COUNSEL TO SECURE ADMISSION TO

PRACTICE BEFORE THIS COURT AND

TO REGISTER FOR ECF

Re: Docket No. 36

INTRODUCTION

Maria Valencia brought suit in state court against her former employer, By the Bay

Investments, and two individuals, Ali Javaherian and Jose Miranda, for sexual harassment and

battery. Defendants removed the action to this court in December 2005. Counsel for plaintiff

and defendants appeared on May 23, 2006 for a Case Management Conference, and the court

set dates (including October 10, 2006 for close of fact discovery and February 20, 2007 for

trial). Shortly thereafter, defendants took plaintiff’s deposition. However, beginning in about

that same time frame, difficulties arose with respect to the willingness or ability of plaintiff’s

attorney, Gregory Tokarczyk, to meet his obligations to his client and to the court.

In a nutshell, Mr. Tokarczyk dropped out of sight. He could not be contacted either by

Case 5:05-cv-05411-HRL Document 47 Filed 12/20/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

defense counsel or the court’s chambers staff. Defendants kept propounding written discovery,

which went unanswered. This court’s orders requiring discovery compliance were ignored. 

The discovery deadline came and went. In understandable frustration, defendants moved to

dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Mr. Tokarczyk did not oppose the motion or appear

at the hearing. The motion was taken under submission.

This court, deeply concerned because its orders had been ignored, issued an Order to

Show Cause re: Contempt to Mr. Tokarczyk. Fortunately, he did appear at the November 28th

hearing and also submitted a declaration seeking to explain his months long pattern of

misfeasance. He had been ill on account of bipolar disorder and chemical dependance. In

September he had entered a four month residential program in Mississippi and had obtained an

emergency leave in order to return to California and respond to the Order to Show Cause. He

acknowledged that the failure to prosecute the case (and to obey the various court orders

concerning discovery) was his alone and not his client’s. He promised that he would either

obtain a new attorney to represent plaintiff or associate an attorney fully capable of meeting all

litigation responsibilities in the event his own medical problems persisted. Acknowledging that

defendants had been put to extra expense because of him, he signified his willingness to pay

reasonable expenses if the court would deny the motion to dismiss and allow the case back on

track. Just prior to the hearing on the Order to Show Cause Mr. Tokarczyk registered for

electronic case filing (ECF). A few days after the hearing he filed a Notice of Association of

Counsel. Newly associated counsel is Richard Hamm.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), a defendant may move for dismissal for failure to

prosecute. When determining whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution, a district court

must weigh five factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the

court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public

policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

sanctions. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994).

//

Case 5:05-cv-05411-HRL Document 47 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DISCUSSION

In this case, the factors of expeditious resolution of litigation and efficient management

of the court’s docket weigh in favor of dismissal. But, the policy of deciding a case on its

merits does not. Are the defendants prejudiced? They assert that the passage of the five or six

months in question dimmed the memory of witnesses. But they do not identify the “witnesses”

who were affected and offer no specifics and no reason why they could not have taken the

statements or depositions of witnesses long ago. Any “delay” in obtaining plaintiff’s medical

records (because, apparently, plaintiff has not responded to written discovery seeking her

doctors’ names and addresses) seems entirely unlikely to result in prejudice to defendants.

Finally, less drastic sanctions are available. At the court’s invitation, defense counsel

submitted an itemized list of attorney fees and costs incurred as a result of Mr. Tokarczyk’s

derelictions. The claimed sum is $7,244.70. The court has carefully reviewed the list and

determined that some items do not apply and others represent costs for discovery motions that

the court previously declined to award. The court allows $3747.60 and requires Mr. Tokarczyk

to promptly pay that amount, as sanctions, to defendants. 

CONCLUSION

1. The motion to dismiss is denied;

2. Mr. Tokarczyk shall pay sanctions to defendants in the amount of $3747.60;

3. The clerk of the court is directed to forward a copy of this order to the California

State Bar Association (although this does not excuse Mr. Tokarczyk’s obligation

to self-report the sanctions, CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 6068(o)(3) (West 2006)).

4. A further case management conference will be held on January 30, 2007. The

parties shall file a joint case management statement by January 22, 2007.

//

//

//

//

//

Case 5:05-cv-05411-HRL Document 47 Filed 12/20/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 The court expects Mr. Hamm from here on to shoulder joint responsibility for

the timely and efficient prosecution of this case.

4

5. Associated counsel Richard Hamm shall immediately secure admission to

practice before this court and register for ECF.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2006 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05411-HRL Document 47 Filed 12/20/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT NOTICE WILL BE SENT TO: 

Patrick John Cimmarusti pjcimmar@yahoo.com 

Curtis L. Metzgar ecwlg7@earthlink.net, 

Gregory John Tokarczyk gtokarczyk@sbcglobal.net 

Richard Hamm 

Law Offices of Richard Hamm 

12 S. First Street 

Suite 809 

San Jose, CA 95113 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Date: 12/20/06 /s/ JMM 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:05-cv-05411-HRL Document 47 Filed 12/20/06 Page 5 of 5