Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01459/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01459-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 

ANDREW RITCHSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JOHN ROSS ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1459-EFB 

ORDER 

 Pending before the court is non-party New Hampshire Insurance Company’s (“New 

Hampshire”) motion to intervene in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 

and the court’s February 4, 2016 order to show cause why plaintiff and defendants should not be 

sanctioned for failure to file either an opposition brief or statement of non-opposition to New 

Hampshire’s motion.1

 See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230. For the following reasons, New Hampshire’s 

motion to intervene is granted2 and the order to show cause is discharged as to defendant 

Neubauer-Jennison, Inc. (“Neubauer”). 

 1

 This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the parties’ consent. ECF No. 18. New 

Hampshire has also consented to this matter proceeding before the undersigned. ECF No. 

32. 

2

 Because the court determined that oral argument would not be of material assistance to 

the court, the motion was submitted without appearance and without argument pursuant to 

Eastern District of California Local Rule 230(g). 

Case 2:15-cv-01459-EFB Document 34 Filed 03/11/16 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

 New Hampshire filed its motion to intervene in this action, which it noticed for hearing on 

February 10, 2016. ECF Nos. 22, 24. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), the parties were required to 

file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion no later than fourteen days 

preceding the noticed hearing date or, in this instance, by January 27, 2016. The parties herein 

filed neither. 

 Accordingly, the hearing on the motion was continued to March 2, 2016, and the parties 

were ordered to show cause, no later than February 17, 2016, why sanctions should not be 

imposed for failure to respond to New Hampshire’s motion. ECF No. 25. That order also 

directed the parties to file either an opposition or statement of non-opposition by February 17, 

2016. All parties have since filed a statement of non-opposition to New Hampshire’s motion to 

intervene. ECF Nos. 26, 28, 29. Only defendant Neubauer responded to the court’s order to 

show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. 

 In light of the parties’ statements of non-opposition, and for the reasons articulated in New 

Hampshire’s moving papers, the court grant’s New Hampshire’s motion to intervene. 

 As for the order to show cause, Maria S. Rosenfeld, counsel for defendant Neubauer, 

acknowledged that she should have filed a statement of non-opposition in the time prescribed by 

Local Rule 230(c). Declaration of Maria S. Rosenfeld, ECF No. 27 ¶ 27. Counsel explains that 

at the pretrial scheduling conference, which was held on December 16, 2015, the parties notified 

the court that they anticipated New Hampshire moving to intervene in this action, and that under 

the circumstances counsel “was operating under the erroneous assumption that since no counsel 

voiced objection to the anticipated intervention at the pre-trial scheduling hearing, it was 

understood by the Court that there would be no formal or other opposition to the motion seeking 

leave for intervention by New Hampshire . . . .” Id. 

 Although the possibility of a forthcoming motion to intervene was discussed at the 

scheduling conference, the parties did not specifically indicate that such a motion would be 

unopposed. Nor did the parties submit a written stipulation and proposed order for granting the 

motion. Regardless, given that defendant Neubauer timely responded to the court’s order to show 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-01459-EFB Document 34 Filed 03/11/16 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

cause, and in light of counsel’s representations, the order to show cause is discharged as to 

defendant Neubauer and no sanctions will be imposed against this defendant. 

So Ordered. 

DATED: March 11, 2016. 

 

 

Case 2:15-cv-01459-EFB Document 34 Filed 03/11/16 Page 3 of 3