Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00859/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00859-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

*E-filed 2/20/08*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARK HOUSTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTRY COACH, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-00859 HRL

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO

COUNSEL RE: SANCTIONS

A Pretrial Conference was set for February 19, 2008, but was vacated due to plaintiff

counsel's eleventh hour notice of his inability to attend. Moreover, as indicated in the recently

issued "Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order," the court has serious concerns about both

parties' deficient submissions in response to this court's pretrial standing order obligations. 

Accordingly, notice is hereby given to Terry L. Baker, counsel for plaintiff, and Kevin J. Tully,

counsel for defendant, that on March 13, 2008 at 1:30 PM each attorney shall appear and show

cause why he should not be sanctioned for the following:

As for Mr. Baker:

• Waiting until the last minute to advise the court that he had been summoned for

jury duty on the date scheduled for the Pretrial Conference;

• Not meeting and conferring with defense counsel 15 days before the due date of

the Joint Pretrial Conference Statement;

Case 5:07-cv-00859-HRL Document 35 Filed 02/20/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

• Not filing a Joint Pretrial Conference Statement;

• Not filing a timely Pretrial Conference Statement;

• Not filing timely Motions in Limine;

• Not giving the substance of the testimony of any of his proposed witnesses;

• Not differentiating between witnesses he "intend[s]" to call and those he "may"

call;

• Not giving any time estimate for presentation of his case, including cross

examination; and

• Not providing a "detailed statement" of the relief sought (how does plaintiff

calculate damages? does plaintiff intend to seek rescission?).

As for Mr. Tully:

• Not meeting and conferring with plaintiff's counsel 15 days before the due date

of the Joint Pretrial Conference Statement;

• Not submitting a Joint Pretrial Conference Statement;

• Not giving the substance of the testimony of any proposed witnesses;

• Not differentiating between witnesses he "intend[s]" to call and those he "may"

call;

• Not giving a "reasoned" time estimate to put on his case;

• Not giving the "substance or purpose" of exhibits and lumping "various repair

orders" into single exhibit without explanation; and

• Not stating any proposed undisputed facts.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/20/08 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:07-cv-00859-HRL Document 35 Filed 02/20/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT NOTICE WILL BE SENT TO: 

Terry L. Baker tbaker@consumerlawgroup.net 

Kevin J. Tully kevin@tullylaw.net, jeanine@tullylaw.net, julie@tullylaw.net 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing.

Date: 2/20/08 KRO 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:07-cv-00859-HRL Document 35 Filed 02/20/08 Page 3 of 3