Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00696/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00696-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAEED ZARAKANI, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0696-MCE-KJN

ORDER AND 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On January 14, 2015, the court issued two orders. One order directed defendants’ attorney 

of record, William Bernheim, to pay $500.00 in monetary sanctions for his failure to comply with 

the court’s prior orders and to provide the court with a written statement informing the court 

whether he intends to further represent defendants in this matter, and if not, to file for substitution 

of counsel in conformance with this court’s local rules. (ECF No. 22.) The second order directed 

defendant Saeed Zarakani to provide the court with a written statement informing the court 

whether defendants have retained new counsel, and if not, whether they are seeking new counsel. 

(ECF No. 21.) Both orders required compliance within fourteen (14) days of their issuance, by no 

later than January 28, 2015. This deadline has since passed and, to date, the record reflects that 

neither order has been complied with or that any filings have been made in this matter by Mr. 

Bernheim or Mr. Zarakani since the court’s January 14, 2014 orders.

Case 2:14-cv-00696-MCE-KJN Document 24 Filed 02/20/15 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

2

To date, the only filing made since the issuance of the court’s orders was a January 15, 

2015 status report filed by plaintiff in response to a previous court order. (ECF No. 23.) In this 

report, plaintiff represents that his counsel emailed defendants’ purportedly incoming counsel, 

Bruce Neilson, regarding the status of defendants’ attorney substitution efforts. (Id. at 2.) 

Plaintiff further represents that Mr. Neilson responded to this email on January 6, 2015, stating 

that he had received a signed substitution of attorney form from defendants’ prior attorney and 

only needed to have defendants sign it and return it to him. (Id. at Exh. 1.) Plaintiff’s counsel 

replied to this email on January 7, 2015, requesting that Mr. Neilson confirm that he will be 

handling the case and that he file any necessary paperwork to ensure that the substitution moves 

forward. (Id.) However, plaintiff’s counsel never received a response from Mr. Neilson 

regarding this email and, to date, no substitution of attorney has been filed.

Based on the above representations and the complete silence from defendants and their 

counsel of record with respect to the court’s recent orders, the court finds it appropriate to hold a 

status conference to determine whether defendants have in fact retained Mr. Neilson or another 

attorney as new counsel, why Mr. Zarakani failed to respond to the court’s January 14, 2015 

order, how the parties wish to proceed with respect to the unanswered discovery requests plaintiff 

seeks to compel, and whether the parties intend to seek settlement of this case. Accordingly, a 

status conference will be set for Thursday March 26, 2015, at 10:00 a.m,. before the 

undersigned. Counsel for plaintiff and defendant Saeed Zarakani are directed to make 

appearances at this conference. Furthermore, if defendants have retained Bruce Neilson or 

another attorney as new counsel, then defendants’ new counsel shall also appear at the status 

conference even if he or she has not been formally substituted in as defendants’ counsel of record 

by that time. Alternatively, if defendants are still proceeding with William Bernheim as their 

counsel of record, then Mr. Bernheim shall also make an appearance at the status conference. 

By no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference, the parties shall file a 

joint status report addressing the following topics: (1) the status of defendants’ purported 

substitution of attorney; (2) whether defendants will continue to proceed in this matter with their 

current counsel of record, or seek to substitute their current counsel of record with Bruce Neilson 

Case 2:14-cv-00696-MCE-KJN Document 24 Filed 02/20/15 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

or another attorney; (3) what, if any, meet and confer efforts the parties have made regarding 

plaintiff’s pending motion to compel; (4) whether defendants intend to provide plaintiff with 

responses to the discovery requests plaintiff seeks to compel and, if so, by what date; (5) whether 

the parties believe settlement of this action is desirable and, if so, whether the parties want to have 

this case set for a settlement conference; and (6) any other relevant matters the parties believe 

need to be brought to the court’s attention.1 If either party files a non-joint status report in 

response to this order, that party shall explain in their statement why it was not possible to file the 

document as a joint report.

Furthermore, by no later than March 19, 2015, defendants’ current counsel of record, 

William Bernheim, is ordered to show cause in writing why he failed to timely pay the $500.00 in 

monetary sanctions ordered against him on January 14, 2015. Mr. Bernheim is cautioned that 

should he fail to timely respond to this order to show cause, he could face additional sanctions 

including, but not limited to, additional monetary sanctions and the issuance of a complaint 

against him to the California State Bar regarding his apparent abandonment of his clients in this 

action and failure to comply with this court’s orders.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. A status conference is set for Thursday March 26, 2015, at 10:00 a.m,. in 

Courtroom No. 25 before the undersigned. Counsel for plaintiff and defendant Saeed Zarakani 

are directed to make appearances at this conference. If defendants intend to retain Bruce 

Neilson or anther attorney as new counsel, then defendants’ new counsel shall also appear at the 

status conference even if he or she has not been formally substituted in as defendants’ counsel of 

record. Alternatively, if defendants still intend to proceed with William Bernheim as their 

counsel of record, then Mr. Bernheim shall make also an appearance at the status conference.

////

 

1

The court encourages the parties to meet and confer with one another when drafting the joint 

status report and to discuss the desirability of a settlement conference. If the parties determine 

that they want to engage in a settlement conference, then the parties may file a joint request for 

such a conference along with a request to continue the above-scheduled status conference until 

after the proposed settlement conference date. 

Case 2:14-cv-00696-MCE-KJN Document 24 Filed 02/20/15 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

2. Not later than fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference, the parties shall file 

a joint status report addressing the following:

a. the status of defendants’ purported substitution of attorney;

b. whether defendants will continue to proceed in this matter with their 

current counsel of record, or seek to substitute their current counsel of record with Bruce Neilson 

or another attorney; 

c. what, if any, meet and confer efforts the parties have made regarding 

plaintiff’s pending motion to compel; 

d. whether defendants intend to provide plaintiff with responses to the 

discovery requests plaintiff seeks to compel and, if so, by what date;

e. whether the parties believe that settlement of this action is desirable and, if 

so, whether the parties want to have this case set for a settlement conference; and

f. any other relevant matters the parties believe need to be brought to the 

court’s attention.

3. By no later than March 19, 2015, defendants’ counsel of record, William 

Bernheim, shall show cause in writing why he failed to timely pay the $500.00 in monetary 

sanctions ordered against him on January 14, 2015. Mr. Bernheim is again cautioned that should 

he fail to timely respond to this order to show cause, he could face additional sanctions including, 

but not limited to, additional monetary sanctions and the issuance of a complaint against him to 

the California State Bar regarding his apparent abandonment of his clients in this action and 

failure to comply with this court’s orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-00696-MCE-KJN Document 24 Filed 02/20/15 Page 4 of 4