Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00948/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00948-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

* On September 9, 2003, the Court entered default judgments

against Defendants Jess Abundez, Dave Alvarez, and Brad Hudson.

The caption is amended because Defendant Peter Cao is the only

remaining Defendant. 

1 All references to “Rule 16” are to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 16.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV INC., )

) 2:03-cv-0948-GEB-GGH-PS

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) ORDER

)

PETER CAO, )

)

Defendant.* )

______________________________)

On June 20, 2005, the Magistrate Judge ordered

Defendant to show cause within ten days from the date of the

Order as to why he failed to participate in the filing of a Joint

Status Report (“JSR”) in accordance with the Rule 16 Scheduling

Order.1 Defendant failed to respond. On August 18, 2005, the

Magistrate Judge ordered Defendant to show cause within ten days

Case 2:03-cv-00948-GEB-GGH Document 50 Filed 12/21/05 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

2

of the date of the Order as to why Defendant’s answer should not

be stricken and judgment entered for Plaintiff due to his failure

to participate in the filing of a JSR and his failure to respond

to the Order filed June 20, 2005. Again, Defendant failed to

respond. On October 20, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed

proposed Findings and Recommendations, which recommended striking

Defendant’s answer and entering judgment for Plaintiff. The

Magistrate Judge provided Plaintiff with twenty days to file

written objections to the proposed Findings and Recommendations. 

Plaintiff did not file any objections. Accordingly, the Court

presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v. United

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999).

The conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt

v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983). Pursuant to Rule 16(f), the Court may impose sanctions,

including striking the answer and entering judgment for the

plaintiff, if the defendant fails to obey a Rule 16 scheduling

order. See, e.g., Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 912 (9th

Cir. 2003). However, before entering judgment as a sanction, the

Court must weigh (1) the public’s interest in expeditious

resolution of litigation; (2) the need to manage court dockets;

(3) the risk of prejudice to the plaintiff; (4) the public policy

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the

availability of less drastic sanctions. Dahl v. City of

Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 366 (9th Cir. 1996). In addition,

the Court must determine whether the defendant “demonstrated

Case 2:03-cv-00948-GEB-GGH Document 50 Filed 12/21/05 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

3

willfulness, bad faith, or fault.” Jorgensen, 320 F.3d at 912;

Fjelstad v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 762 F.2d 1334, 1340

(9th Cir. 1985). 

After considering these factors, the Court concludes

that striking Defendant’s answer is an appropriate sanction. See

Dahl, 84 F.3d at 366 (dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint was

an appropriate sanction because it was not “clearly outside the

acceptable range” of sanctions given the facts of the case). 

However, judgment will not be entered for Plaintiff at this time

because the Findings and Recommendations do not specify the

judgment sum. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 20, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-00948-GEB-GGH Document 50 Filed 12/21/05 Page 3 of 3