Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00246/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00246-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Scott N. Johnson, )

) 2:10-cv-00246-GEB-KJM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) SANCTIONS ORDER AGAINST

) PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL AND 

) ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND

) DISPOSITION

)

Jeffrey A. Welch, Individually )

and d/b/a Players Pub; W T & )

Associates, Individually and )

d/b/a Players Sports Pub & )

Grill; Ronald D. Earls, )

Individually and d/b/a )

Waterfalls; Mei Wu, )

Individually and d/b/a Kuts N )

More; Fang Huang, Individually )

and d/b/a Kuts N More, )

) 

Defendants. )

)

A joint status report was not filed in this matter until

after the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should

not be imposed. Plaintiff filed a Response to Order to Show Cause on

June 10, 2010, in which he apologized for not filing the report “when

one was due.” (Docket No. 18.) The response further stated that a

notice of settlement was filed on June 9, 2010, and Plaintiff is

“waiting for the return of the dismissal documents from the

Defendants.” 

Case 2:10-cv-00246-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 06/21/10 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

The status conference will remain on calendar, because the 1

mere representation that an action has been settled does not justify

removal of the action from a district court’s trial docket. Cf. Callie

v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987)(indicating that a

representation that claims have been settled does not necessarily

establish the existence of a binding settlement agreement). 

2

The Notice of Settlement states, “[d]ispositional documents

will be filed within (30) calendar days.” (Docket No. 17.) However,

Local Rule 160(b) requires dispositional documents to be filed within

twenty-one days from the date the court is notified about the

settlement, unless good cause is shown. Since Plaintiff has not

demonstrated good cause to extend the twenty-one day time period, a

dispositional document shall be filed no later than June 30, 2010.

Failure to respond by this deadline may be construed as consent to

dismissal of this action without prejudice, and a dismissal order

could be filed. See L.R. 160(b) (“A failure to file dispositional

papers on the date prescribed by the Court may be grounds for

sanctions.”).

The status conference scheduled for June 28, 2010 is

continued to August 9, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. in the event that no

dispositional document is filed, or if this action is not otherwise

dismissed. A joint status report shall be filed fourteen days prior to

the status conference.1

Further, although monetary sanctions are not being imposed

on Plaintiff’s counsel for his failure to timely file a status report,

he is warned that a significant monetary sanction could be imposed if

he fails to comply with a Rule 16 order again. 

The primary purpose of sanctions in the Rule 16 context “is

to insure reasonable management requirements for case preparation.” 

Matter of Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1441 (10th Cir. 1984); see

Case 2:10-cv-00246-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 06/21/10 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

also 1983 Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) (“[The]

explicit reference to sanctions reenforces the rule’s intention to

encourage forceful judicial management.”). Violations of Rule 16 are

not merely technical or trivial, but involve a “matter most critical

to the court itself: management of its docket,” and the avoidance of

unnecessary delays and problems in the administration of its cases. 

Baker, 744 F.2d at 1441.

Rules are rules - and the parties must play by

them. In the final analysis, the judicial process

depends heavily on the judge’s credibility. To

ensure such credibility, a district judge must

often be firm in managing crowded dockets and

demanding adherence to announced deadlines. If he

or she sets a reasonable due date, parties should

not be allowed casually to flout it or painlessly

to escape the foreseeable consequences of

noncompliance.

Legault v. Zambrano, 105 F.3d 24, 29 (1st Cir. 1997)(citing Mendez v.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 900 F.2d 4, 7 (1 Cir. 1990)). st

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:10-cv-00246-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 06/21/10 Page 3 of 3