Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02380/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02380-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

BRYSON WEBB and YVONNE WEBB,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

INDYMAC BANK HOME LOAN

SERVICING, INDYMAC FEDERAL

BANK, INDYMAC MORTGAGE

SERVICES, MTC FINANCIAL, INC.

d/b/a TRUSTEE CORPS., MORTGAGE

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION

SYSTEMS, INC., MTH MORTGAGE,

LLC, JOYCE S. PERKINS, and

DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants. /

NO. CIV. 2:09-2380 WBS DAD

ORDER RE: SANCTIONS

----oo0oo----

On February 16, 2010, the court issued an Order to Show

Cause ordering that defendant MTC Financial, Inc. should either

pay $200.00 in sanctions to the clerk of the court or submit a

statement of good cause for defendant’s failure to supply its

corporate disclosures by February 26, 2010. (Docket No. 48.) On

Case 2:09-cv-02380-WBS-DAD Document 56 Filed 03/15/10 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

February 17, 2010, defendant’s counsel submitted a statement of

good cause, contending that they inadvertently neglected to

provide the court with the disclosures because at the time there

was no operative complaint. 

Defendant’s statement does not demonstrate good cause

for its failure to file corporate disclosures with the court. The

court twice explicitly ordered defendant to submit to the court a

statement of its corporate disclosures in its Order Setting Status

(Pretrial Scheduling) Conference of August 26, 2009 and Minute

Order of January 10, 2010. Defendant’s statement of good cause

merely states that defendant was negligent. A district court has

the authority under to impose sanctions for even unintentional or

negligent noncompliance with the court’s pretrial orders. See,

e.g., Lucas Auto. Eng’g, Inc. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 275

F.3d 762, 769 (9th Cir. 2001) (upholding Rule 16 sanctions imposed

on a party for unintentionally failing to attend a scheduled

mediation due to an incapacitating headache); Ayers v. City of

Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1270 (9th Cir. 1990) (upholding a

district court’s sanctions under Rule 16(f) where counsel failed

to appear for a settlement conference because the date “slipped by

him”); Mt. Shasta Title & Escrow Co. v. Pennbrook Homes, No.

07-963, 2007 WL 4210478, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2007) (Burrell,

J.) (sanctioning counsel $200 for mistakenly filing an inaccurate

status report indicating that a party had been served). 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:09-cv-02380-WBS-DAD Document 56 Filed 03/15/10 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

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, within 10 days of the date

of this Order, defendant shall pay sanctions of $200.00 to the

clerk of the court.

DATED: March 12, 2010

Case 2:09-cv-02380-WBS-DAD Document 56 Filed 03/15/10 Page 3 of 3