Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00984/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00984-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

ORDER (C10-0984 MEJ (LB))

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MALAQUIAS REYNOSO, ET AL., 

PLAINTIFFS,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, ET AL., 

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C 10-0984 MEJ (LB)

ORDER 

The court held a settlement conference today with counsel only in anticipation of the in-person

settlement conference (including parties) set for January 10, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. Defendants’ counsel

appeared in person as the court ordered. See ECF Nos. 155, 156, 157. Plaintiffs’ counsel Keith

Oliver did not call chambers as the court ordered him to. See ECF No. 157 (providing dial-in

instructions and number). The court’s orders about the settlement conference are filed as orders

attached to the electronic docket and as text entries that can be read on smartphones or computers

without logging onto ECF (and paying any attendant costs). 

When Mr. Oliver failed to call in, the court called him. His number on the docket sheet is 415-

512-7353, but that number has been disconnected, which the court verified. The state bar website

lists a new number of 415-613-2919. See http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/257837

(accessed on January 7, 2014). The court’s call to that number went directly to voice mail with the

identifier "Keith Oliver" and an automated message that the mailbox was full. 

Case 3:10-cv-00984-MEJ Document 159 Filed 01/07/14 Page 1 of 2
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

1

 A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(b). See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); McKeever v. Block, 932

F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). “[F]ailure to prosecute diligently is sufficient by itself to justify a

dismissal.” Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). “But only unreasonable

delay will support a dismissal for lack of prosecution.” Nealey v. Transportacion Maritima

Mexicana, S.A., 662 F.2d 1275, 1280 (9th Cir. 1980) (emphasis added)

ORDER (C10-0984 MEJ (LB))

2

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

Defendants’ counsel also tried to ensure Mr. Oliver’s participation and compliance with the

court’s orders. See ECF No. 158. They called him at the old number, found the new number,

emailed him at his two email addresses (including the official email address listed with the court and

reflected on the docket sheet), faxed him at his two fax numbers (receiving a confirmation from one

number), left phone messages at the 415-613-2919 number, and attempted a hand delivery to his

office. See id. They received no response from Mr. Oliver.

The court’s order for an in-person settlement conference remains in effect for Friday, January 10,

2014 at 11:00 a.m. All counsel and all clients are to appear in-person for the settlement conference. 

Mr. Oliver is directed to comply with all of the court’s previous orders, including ensuring his

clients’ in-person appearance. Plaintiffs and Mr. Oliver are warned that a continued failure to

comply with the court’s orders or appear at hearings (including the settlement conferences) may be

grounds for monetary or other appropriate sanctions, including terminating sanctions. 

By no later than noon on January 9, 2014, Mr. Oliver must inform Plaintiffs of the sanctions that

this continued conduct risks, including possible monetary sanctions and, ultimately, a casedispositive sanction that would result in the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ case for failure to prosecute.1

 

The court will issue this order as an order attached to the electronic docket sheet and as a text

entry. The court will send a copy of the text entry (and the attached filed order) to Mr. Oliver’s

email on the docket sheet (krolegal@gmail.com) and his email address listed on the bar’s website

(oliverlc@inbox.com).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2014 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00984-MEJ Document 159 Filed 01/07/14 Page 2 of 2