Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01232/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01232-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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

HEATHER CARTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL; and 

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-01232-GEB-EFB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE

The June 10, 2015, Order Setting Status (Pretrial 

Scheduling) Conference scheduled a status conference in this case 

on August 31, 2015, and required the parties to file a joint 

status report no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the 

scheduling conference. The June 10, 2015 Order further required a 

status report be filed regardless of whether a joint report could 

be procured. No status report was filed as ordered.

Therefore, Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”) 

in a writing to be filed no later than August 28, 2015, why 

sanctions should not be imposed against her and/or her counsel 

under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for 

failure to file a timely status report. The written response 

shall also state whether Plaintiff or her counsel is at fault, 

Case 2:15-cv-01232-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 08/20/15 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

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

requested, it will be held on October 26, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., 

just prior to the status conference, which is rescheduled to that 

date and time. A joint status report shall be filed no later than 

fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 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 2:15-cv-01232-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 2