Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00235/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00235-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
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

As the Order states: 1

The failure of one or more of the parties to

participate in the preparation of the Joint

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

(continued...)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTIE JOHNSON, )

) 2:06-cv-0235-GEB-GGH 

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v. ) AND CONTINUING STATUS

) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

FAROUK YOUSEF DIAB, d/b/a ) CONFERENCE

WIENERCHNITZEL No. 131; MABEL )

R. BOMALICK TRUST, and )

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

The February 3, 2006, Order Setting Status (Pretrial

Scheduling) Conference scheduled a status conference in this case for

April 17, 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 joint report could be procured. No status 1

Case 2:06-cv-00235-GEB-GGH Document 11 Filed 04/10/06 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) 1

parties. 

Order filed February 3, 2006, at 2 n.1.

Local Rule 6-144(d) warns that “[r]equests for Court- 2

approved extensions brought on the required filing date for the

pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor.”

“If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the 3

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

report was filed. Instead, on April 3, 2006, the deadline for the

filing of the JSR, the parties jointly filed a “Stipulation and

Proposed Order to Continue Scheduling Conference” in which they agreed

“that the scheduling conference . . . be continued for a period of

thirty (30) days.”2

Plaintiff and Defendants are Ordered to Show Cause (OSC) no

later than 4:00 p.m. on April 24, 2006, why sanctions should not be

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

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

status report. The written responses shall state whether the parties

or their counsel are at fault and whether a hearing is requested on

the OSC. If a hearing is requested, it will be held on June 5, 2006, 3

at 9:00 a.m., just prior to the status conference, which is

rescheduled to that date. In accordance with the requirements set 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00235-GEB-GGH Document 11 Filed 04/10/06 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

forth in the February 3 Order, the parties shall file a JSR no later

than May 22, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00235-GEB-GGH Document 11 Filed 04/10/06 Page 3 of 3