Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01077/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01077-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 47:553 Unauthorized Reception of Cable Service

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JOSEPH CHRISTOPHER ADAMS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1077 KJM AC (PS) 

ORDER 

 This case started out uneventfully enough with the filing of the complaint, an answer by 

the pro se defendant Adams, and the scheduling of an initial status conference. ECF Nos. 1, 8 

& 12. Defendant subsequently failed to appear at the status conference, which was accordingly 

rescheduled. See ECF Nos. 15 & 16. On December 18, 2013, plaintiff filed a Notice of 

Settlement for the entire case, and promised to file dispositional documents “promptly.” ECF 

No. 17 (emphasis in text). In reliance on plaintiff’s representation, the court vacated the 

rescheduled status conference. ECF No. ECF No. 18. 

 Instead of filing dispositional documents, however, plaintiff withdrew the Notice of 

Settlement, so the court again rescheduled the status conference. ECF Nos. 19 & 29. Plaintiff 

then filed another Notice of Settlement on May 20, 2014, and again promised to file dispositional 

documents “promptly.” ECF No. 22 (emphasis in text). In reliance on plaintiff’s representation, 

the court again vacated the rescheduled status conference. ECF No. ECF No. 23. Once again, 

Case 2:13-cv-01077-KJM-AC Document 31 Filed 04/06/15 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

plaintiff failed to file dispositional documents “promptly,” or even tardily, and failed to advise the 

court of the status of the supposed settlement. 

 Accordingly, on February 5, 2015, the court ordered plaintiff to file dispositional 

documents within 30 days. ECF No. 24. Defendant responded by moving to “re-open” the case. 

ECF No. 25. After denying that motion as unnecessary (the case never having been closed), the 

court again rescheduled the status conference. ECF No. 28. 

 On March 16, 2015, the minute order scheduling the status conference, which had been 

mailed to defendant, was returned by the Post Office as “Undeliverable, not at this address.” It 

thus appears that the answering defendant, Adams, is in violation of the court’s Local Rule 

requiring that he “keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address.” 

E.D. Cal. R. 183(b). 

 In order to get this case on track, or promptly disposed of, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 

that: 

 1. If answering defendant Adams does not advise the court and opposing parties of his 

current address on or before May 18, 2015 (which is within 63 days after the mail was returned 

on March 16, 2015):1

 a. Plaintiff shall promptly – that is, within 30 days of May 18, 2015 – move to 

strike the answer and seek entry of default and a default judgment. 

 b. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the undersigned will recommend that 

this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution. 

 2. If answering defendant Adams notifies the court and opposing parties of his current 

address before the expiration of 63 days, the court will schedule a status conference. The parties 

are cautioned that any failure on their part to comply with the court’s local rules, including those 

//// 

//// 

 

1

 The Local Rules provide that if a pro se plaintiff fails to keep the court and opposing parties 

apprised of his current address, “the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to 

prosecute” after 63 days. E.D. Cal. R. 183(b). Since this is a pro se defendant, the court will wait 

the same 63 days before considering a sanction. 

Case 2:13-cv-01077-KJM-AC Document 31 Filed 04/06/15 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

regarding status conferences, will make them subject to sanctions. Those sanctions may include 

striking the answer, or recommending dismissal for lack of prosecution. 

DATED: April 6, 2015 

Case 2:13-cv-01077-KJM-AC Document 31 Filed 04/06/15 Page 3 of 3