Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01189/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01189-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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 - 06cv1189

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICK LAKE, dba MACHINERY

BUILDERS CONSULTING, a Sole

Proprietorship,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv1189-LAB (POR)

ORDER RE: PRETRIAL

PREPARATION; AND 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED, ANSWER TO

COUNTER-CLAIM SHOULD NOT

BE STRICKEN, AND DEFAULT

JUDGMENT ENTERED IN

FAVOR OF DEFENDANT

SEAGULL OF VOLUSIA

COUNTY, INC.

vs.

SEAGULL OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, INC., a

Florida Corporation; WOLFGANG UNGER,

an Individual,

Defendants.

____________________________________

SEAGULL OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, INC., a

Florida Corporation,

Cross-Complainant,

vs.

RICK LAKE dba MACHINERY BUILDERS

CONSULTING, a Sole Proprietorship,

Cross-Defendant.

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Seagull of Volusia County, Inc. (“Seagull”)moved ex parte

for an order to show cause why the complaint in this action should not be dismissed, and why the

answer to the counter-claim should not be stricken and default judgment entered. Seagull has filed

Case 3:06-cv-01189-LAB-POR Document 49 Filed 09/20/07 Page 1 of 4
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 fact, Lake is already required under Civil Local Rule 5.1(j)(1) to provide a telephone

number where he may be contacted. The Court’s order signed June 19, 2007 merely pointed this out

and ordered Plaintiff to file a notice providing this telephone number as well as his address.

- 2 - 06cv1189

proof of service indicating that the ex parte motion was served by overnight courier on Plaintiff and

Cross-Defendant Rick Lake, dba Machinery Builders Consulting (“Lake”), on September 14, 2007.

Lake, who is proceeding pro se, has not responded to the ex parte motion.

In its ex parte motion, Seagullseeks to be relieved of all pretrial meet-and-confer requirements,

and seeks issuance of an order to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed and why

Lake’s answer to the counter-claim should not be stricken and default judgment entered accordingly.

Seagull’s ex parte motion alleges Lake has not responded to numerous telephone messages

from Seagull’s counsel or to Seagull’s counsel’s letter attempting to arrange to meet and confer as

required regarding pretrial matters. The motion also alleges that while it was previously possible to

leave messages for Lake at the telephone number he provided to Seagull, this number is no longer in

service and that therefore Lake is failing to maintain a working phone number as ordered by the Court

on June 19, 2007.1

In support of its motion, Seagull has submitted a declaration by its counsel attesting to these

alleged facts, and to the authenticity of exhibits it also submitted, which included the letter from

Seagull’s counsel requesting Lake to contact him to arrange to meet and confer regarding the exchange

of exhibits and witness lists. The letterhead lists Seagull’s counsel’s address, telephone number, and

fax number. 

Lake’s most recent filing was on June 15, 2007, when he filed his response to Seagull’s

counter-claim. He did not oppose or otherwise respond to Defendant Unger’s ex parte motion for

entry of judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) filed on August 31, 2007.

OnOctober 10, 2006,following a casemanagement conference before Magistrate Judge Louisa

Porter, the pretrial conference was scheduled for Monday, September 24, 2007 at 10:45 a.m.

(Scheduling Order, filed Oct. 10, 2006, at 4:5–6.) The same order required the parties, or their

counsel, to comply with various pretrial requirements and deadlines, including disclosures, meeting

and conferring, exchanging of documents, drafting a proposed pretrial order, and otherwise complying

with the Civil Local Rules and the Court’s standing order. (Id. at 3:13–4:4.) This scheduling order

Case 3:06-cv-01189-LAB-POR Document 49 Filed 09/20/07 Page 2 of 4
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 - 06cv1189

specifically advises the parties that failure to comply with the disclosure requirements could result in

evidence preclusion or sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (Id. at 3:18–20.) Although the scheduling

order refers to Plaintiff’s counsel, Plaintiff Lake is advised that because he is representing himself, the

instructions in this order apply to him, and the responsibility for carrying out what would ordinarily

be his attorney’s responsibilities falls on him. (See Order Approving Withdrawal and Substitution of

Counsel, filed April 11, 2007 (approving Plaintiff’s request to substitute in propria persona for his

previous counsel, Philip Asiano, and reminding Plaintiff he must comply with all scheduled dates and

with all applicable rules and orders).)

Under Fed.. R. Civ. P. 16(f), sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(B)–(D) may be

imposed

[i]f a party or party's attorney fails to obey a scheduling or pretrial order, or if no

appearance is made on behalf of a party at a scheduling or pretrial conference, or

if a party or party's attorney is substantially unprepared to participate in the

conference, or if a party or party's attorney fails to participate in good faith . . . .

Among the available sanctions are the striking of pleadings, and the rendering of a default judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).

For these reasons, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Lake to meet and confer

with Defendant and Cross-Complainant Seagull, and to take all other steps required under the

scheduling order issued October 10, 2006. Lake is ORDERED to immediately provide Seagull’s

counsel with a working telephone number where he may be reached, and to promptly file a notice of

change of address with the Court at any time during the pendency of this action when his phone

number or address change. Lake is also hereby ORDERED to appear personally at the pretrial

conference on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 10:45 a.m. and to show cause why his answer to the

counter-claim should not be stricken and why default judgment should not be entered against him both

as to his complaint and as to the counter-claim. Should Lake fail to appear at the pretrial

conference or to show cause as ordered, he may be subject to sanctions, including entry of

default judgment against him on both his complaint and the counter-claim.

Seagull’s request to be excused from pretrial preparation is GRANTED IN PART AND

DENIED IN PART. Should Lake continue to fail to participate in pretrial preparation even after

Case 3:06-cv-01189-LAB-POR Document 49 Filed 09/20/07 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 06cv1189

issuance of this order, Seagull will still be required to appear at the pretrial conference, and is directed

to prepare, serve, and lodge a proposed pretrial order, but is excused from other pretrial preparation

until further notice. Seagull, is, however, requested to continue with pretrial preparation in

anticipation of this case proceeding as scheduled, or after a brief delay. Should Lake begin to comply

with pretrial requirements, however, Seagull is directed to cooperate with Lake in order to prepare for

the pretrial conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 18, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01189-LAB-POR Document 49 Filed 09/20/07 Page 4 of 4