Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03171/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03171-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKIE L. WALKER, )

) 2:09-cv-03171-GEB-DAD

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER IMPOSING SANCTION, RULE

v. ) 4(M) NOTICE, CONTINUING 

) STATUS CONFERENCE, AND

CITIBANK, N.A. as trustee for the ) REQUIRING EXPLANATION WHY

Certificate holder of Structured ) CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

Asset Mortgage Investments II Inc.,)

Bear Sterns ALT-A Trust, Mortgage )

Pass-Through Certificates Series )

2007-3, its assignees and/or )

successors, and the servicing )

agent; EMC Mortgage Corporation; )

BAYROCK MORTGAGE, INC. )

)

) 

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff and his lawyer were issued an Order to Show Cause

on March 11, 2010 (“March 11 OSC”), which required them to explain why

sanctions should not be imposed because of Plaintiff’s failure to file

a timely status report. Because of this filing failure, the status

conference was rescheduled to April 12, 2010, and Plaintiff was

required to file a status report no later than fourteen days prior to

the April 12 status conference. 

Plaintiff and his lawyer failed to respond to the March 11

OSC, and Plaintiff yet again failed to file a status report as

required by the March 11 OSC. This second failure, combined with

Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the OSC, indicate Plaintiff is not

interested in prosecuting this case, and that the risk of a monetary

Case 2:09-cv-03171-GEB-DAD Document 7 Filed 04/08/10 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

2

or another sanction has no effect on encouraging Plaintiff to comply

with a court filing requirement. 

“A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly

entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril

. . . . Disregard of the order would undermine the court’s ability to

control its docket . . . and reward the indolent and the cavalier.” 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992)

(internal citation and quotations omitted); see also Ayers v. City of

Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1270 (9th Cir. 1990) (affirming sanction of

lawyer for failure to attend a settlement conference because “the date

‘slipped by him’”) (emphasis added). “The cogs of the wheel of

justice move much more smoothly when attorneys who practice in this

court follow the rules of practice and procedure . . . .” Dela Rosa

v. Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc., 136 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th

Cir. 1998).

Since Plaintiff’s counsel failed to file a timely status

report and did not respond to the March 11 OSC, Plaintiff’s attorney

Mitchell Luke Abdallah and/or Abdallah Law Group is sanctioned four

hundred dollars ($400.00). This sanction shall be paid to the Clerk

of this Court no later than 4:30 p.m. on April 15, 2010, by a check

made payable to the “United States Treasury.” Proof of payment shall

be filed no later than 4:30 p.m. on April 16, 2010. This sanction is

personal to counsel or his law firm and shall not be transmitted to

counsel’s client.

Moreover, Plaintiff is notified under Rule 4(m) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that any defendant not served with

process within the 120 day period prescribed in that Rule may be

dismissed as a defendant in this action unless Plaintiff provides

Case 2:09-cv-03171-GEB-DAD Document 7 Filed 04/08/10 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

proof of service or “shows good cause for the failure” to serve the

defendant within this prescribed period in a filing due no later than

4:00 p.m. on April 15, 2010. Further, the doe defendants are

dismissed since Plaintiff failed to provide justification for doe

defendants as required in the November 16, 2009, order scheduling the

status conference. 

Also, since the status of this case has not yet been 

determined, the status conference scheduled for April 12, 2010, is

continued to May 10, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. A joint status report shall

be filed no later than fourteen days prior to the status conference.

Lastly, since it appears that Plaintiff is not interested in

prosecuting this case, Plaintiff shall explain in a filing due no

later than 4:00 p.m. on April 15, 2010, why this case shall not be

dismissed because of Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case. If

Plaintiff fails to provide a sufficient explanation, this case could

be dismissed without further communication with Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:09-cv-03171-GEB-DAD Document 7 Filed 04/08/10 Page 3 of 3