Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02988/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02988-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

CYNTHIA HOPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LA CONTENTA PLAZA, a 

California Limited 

Partnership; MARK TWAIN

ST. JOSEPH’S HEALTHCARE

CORPORATION, dba Family 

Medical Center Valley 

Springs; GERALD WALK, dba 

Pizza Factory; CAROL WALK, 

dba Pizza Factory; and DOES 

1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-02988-GEB-DAD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE; ORDER 

DISMISSING DEFEDANTS GERALD WALK 

AND CAROL WALK

The July 14, 2015, Order Continuing Status (Pretrial 

Scheduling) Conference scheduled a status conference in this case 

on August 31, 2015, and required the parties to file a joint 

status report no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the 

scheduling conference. Defendants La Contenta Plaza and Mark 

Twain St. Joseph’s Healthcare each filed a separate status 

report. Plaintiff failed to file a status report as ordered.

Therefore, Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”) 

in a writing to be filed no later than August 28, 2015, why 

sanctions should not be imposed against her and/or her counsel 

Case 2:14-cv-02988-TLN-KJN Document 23 Filed 08/20/15 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

under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

(“Rules”) for failure to file a timely status report. The written 

response shall also state whether Plaintiff or her counsel is at 

fault, and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC.1 If a 

hearing is requested, it will be held on October 26, 2015, at 

9:00 a.m., just prior to the status conference, which is 

rescheduled to that date and time. A joint status report shall be 

filed no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the status 

conference. The parties shall begin the meet and confer process 

early enough to enable them to prepare a joint status report.2

Further, the July 14, 2015 Order required Plaintiff no 

later than August 3, 2015, to either file proof that Defendants 

Carol Walk and Gerald Walk were served with process or a document 

showing good cause for Plaintiff’s failure to serve these 

Defendants as ordered. (Order 2:3-9, ECF No. 18.) That Order 

warned Plaintiff that failure to make the required showing by the 

deadline would result in Defendants Carol Walk and Gerald Walk 

being dismissed from this action.

Plaintiff filed a response on August 3, 2015, in which 

she states in relevant part: 

6. I hired the company, OneLegal, in order to 

 

1 “If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the impact of 

sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the clients, that is where 

the impact of the sanction should be lodged.” In re Sanction of Baker, 744 

F.2d 1438, 1442 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1014 (1985). 

Sometimes the faults of attorneys, and their consequences, are visited upon 

clients. Myers v. Shekter (In re Hill), 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985).

2 The failure of one or more of the parties to participate in the 

preparation of the Joint Status Report does not excuse the other parties from 

their obligation to timely file a status report in accordance with this Order. 

In the event a party fails to participate as ordered, the party timely 

submitting the status report shall include a declaration explaining why it was 

unable to obtain the cooperation of the other party or parties.

Case 2:14-cv-02988-TLN-KJN Document 23 Filed 08/20/15 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

serve process on both Gerald and Carol Walk. 

The OneLegal process server was unable to 

serve Carol Walk as Carol Walk has died.

7. Upon finding out that Carol Walk had died, 

the process server for OneLegal stopped his 

attempts to serve Gerald Walk for some 

unknown reason. I have attempted to find out 

what why, and, or, correct the misconception 

of the OneLegal process server.

8. I ask that this court not dismiss the case 

against Gerald Walk until I can attempt to 

serve Gerald Walk by correcting the 

misunderstanding with OneLegal.

(Pl.’s Resp. && 6-8, ECF No. 19.) Then on August 17, 2015, 

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal “requesting that this 

action be . . . dismissed in its entirety against [these] 

defendants under [Rule] 41(a)(1).” (ECF No. 21.) However, 

Plaintiff’s dismissal notice did not contain the agreement of the 

Defendants La Contenta Plaza and Mark Twain St. Joseph’s 

Healthcare as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

Since Defendants Carol Walk and Gerald Walk have not 

been served and Plaintiff has not provided justification for 

their continued presence in this action, they are dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-02988-TLN-KJN Document 23 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 3