Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00396/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00396-9/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW MONTAGUE, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

COUNTY OF KERN, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-06-396 OWW/TAG

ORDER 

On October 11, 2007, an Order to Show Cause was issued to

the parties why they should not be assessed fees and expenses of

summoning, for appearance on October 9, 2007, a jury panel for

the trial of this action. 

Counsel for Defendants filed a Declaration in response to

the OSC. No written response was filed on behalf of Plaintiff. 

The OSC was heard on November 26, 2007. At the November 26, 2007

hearing, the Court orally ordered that three-quarters of the jury

fees and expenses be paid by Mr. Low, counsel for Plaintiff, and

one-quarter by the County for their failure to timely notify the

Case 1:06-cv-00396-OWW -TAG Document 70 Filed 05/07/08 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

2

Court it was not necessary for a jury to be summoned by virtue of

a settlement reached by the parties before trial. The Memorandum

Decision and Order filed on November 29, 2007 ruled: “Plaintiff

is ordered to pay three-quarters of those fees” and that

“Plaintiff’s check shall be in the amount of $2,996.95.” 

By Order filed on March 12, 2008, Plaintiff was ordered to

show cause on April 21, 2008, why he has not paid the jury

reimbursement fees in the amount of $2,996.95, as ordered by the

Court on November 29, 2007.

Mr. Low appeared telephonically at the April 21, 2008

hearing. Plaintiff did not appear personally or telephonically. 

Mr. Low advised that he had left several telephone messages for

Plaintiff advising him of the OSC set for April 21 and had sent

him a letter notifying of the date and time of the OSC. At the

April 21, 2008 hearing the Court advised Mr. Low that the Court

viewed the obligation to pay the Plaintiff’s portion of the jury

fees as a joint and several obligation between Plaintiff and his

attorney. Mr. Low expressed surprise that he was considered

responsible for the Court-ordered obligation and stated that he

would have filed a responsive pleading had he known. Mr. Low was

granted until May 21, 2008 to file his responsive pleading. Mr.

Low requested the Court to provide him with authority that Mr.

Low is obligated to pay the jury fees.

Rule 16-272(b), Local Rules of Practice, provides:

If for any reason attributable to counsel or

parties, including settlement, the Court is

unable to commence a jury trial as scheduled

Case 1:06-cv-00396-OWW -TAG Document 70 Filed 05/07/08 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

3

when a panel of prospective jurors has

reported for voir dire, the Court may assess

against counsel or parties responsible all or

part of the cost of the panel.

Rule 11-110, Local Rules of Practice, provides: “Failure of

counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any

order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of

any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

inherent power of the Court.” As explained in Zambrano v. City

of Tustin, 885 F.2d 1473, 1480 (9 Cir.1989): th

[W]e think it inappropriate for the court

system to claim ‘compensation’ for being

‘ill-used,’ The court system is not a private

party that needs to be reimbursed for its

inconvenience. Consequently, absent grossly

negligent, reckless, or willful conduct,

monetary penalties such as jury costs or

judicial sanctions cannot be fairly levied

against counsel for a violation of the local

rules.

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel failure to timely communicate with

Defendants’ counsel resulted in the wholly unjustified failure of

Plaintiff’s counsel to respond to Defendants’ counsel’s offer and

to notify the court after he was advised by the Court that a jury

had been summoned and the case was confirmed for jury trial in

open court after the motions in limine were heard and decided. 

Mr. Low’s conduct was negligent, reckless, and in total disregard

of his duty as an officer of the Court not to cause the

inconvenience and public expense of summoning a jury.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00396-OWW -TAG Document 70 Filed 05/07/08 Page 3 of 3