Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583-77/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY D. HAMILTON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

HENRY W. WILLMS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CASE NUMBER 1:02-6583 AWI SMS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE BY

FEBRUARY 29, 2012 WHY ACTION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

BACKGROUND

This action was filed on July 17, 2002, in the United States District Court for the District

of Colorado. Pursuant to Defendants’ motion, on December 11, 2002, the District Court of 

Colorado transferred the action to this court. On June 11, 2003, Plaintiffs filed a second

amended complaint. 

On November 21, 2005, the parties filed their joint Pretrial Statement. On November 28,

2005, the court held a Pretrial Conference, which was continued to February 6, 2006. On March

8, 2006, the parties and the court entered a stipulation to set trial in this matter for November 28,

2006 and set the Pretrial Conference for October 11, 2006, which was later continued to October

27, 2006.

The court held the Pretrial Conference on October 27, 2006. At the pretrial conference,

the parties indicated they would be ready for trial on November 28, 2006. The court issued its

Pretrial Order on November 2, 2006. The Pretrial Order set the trial for December 5, 2006 and

the motions in limine hearing for November 21, 2006, which was later reset to November 28,

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 778 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 6
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

2006.

The parties then filed motions in limine. On November 28, 2006, the court held a hearing

on the motions in limine. At the hearing, Plaintiffs raised the issue of their need to still depose

Suzzane Conry but stated Defendants were unwilling to honor a prior stipulation concerning Ms

Conry’s deposition. On November 29, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the deposition

of Ms. Conry and to compel the enforcement of the previous agreement. 

On November 29, 2006, Judge Snyder held an informal telephonic conference concerning

the issue of the stipulation and Ms. Conry’s deposition. No informal agreement was reached

regarding this discovery issue. Judge Snyder held another informal telephonic conference on

December 4, 2006. Again, an agreement was not reached. Judge Snyder found she could not

rule on the discovery motion without impacting the trial, which was set to start the next day. The

partes were then referred to Judge Ishii. On December 4, 2006, Judge Ishii held a telephonic

hearing with the parties. After allowing the parties to briefly state the discovery dispute, Judge

Ishii denied any request to continue the trial to resolve the discovery matter concerning Ms.

Conry. 

A little before 4:00 p.m. on December 4, 2006, the parties’ attorneys contacted Judge Ishii

and stated they had reached a stipulation to continue the trial. The parties and the parties’

attorneys informed Judge Ishii that they had negotiated a stipulation that would continue the trial

in exchange for Plaintiffs eliminating certain parties and certain claims from this action. The

parties stated the purpose of this agreement was to allow Plaintiffs time to file a motion regarding

the stipulations and agreements on Ms. Conry’s deposition. Judge Ishii then vacated the trial

date and ordered that the stipulation be memorialized in written document signed by the

respective counsel and the parties. 

After no stipulation was filed, on December 11, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to

enforce the December 4, 2006 stipulation and for an award sanctions. Plaintiffs opposed this

motion. On March 6, 2007, Judge Ishii granted Defendants’ motion to enforce the December 4,

2

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 778 Filed 02/16/12 Page 2 of 6
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

2006 oral stipulation. On October 4, 2007, Judge Ishii denied Plaintiffs’ numerous motions for

reconsideration of this order. 

On September 27, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the attendance of Ms. Conray

at a deposition. On November 19, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel compliance with 

court orders, a request for an evidentiary hearing, and a motion for sanctions against Defendants

and their counsel. On April 30, 2008, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion to compel compliance

with the agreement concerning Ms. Conry and other discovery agreements. All parties provided

the court with numerous oppositions, exhibits, requests for judicial notice, and reply briefs

concerning whether the court should compel Ms. Conry to be deposed. On June 6, 2008, Judge

Snyder issued a minute order clarifying that the only issue before the court was whether Plaintiffs

should be permitted to take the deposition of Ms. Conry. On June 6, 2008, Judge Snyder issued

a minute order allowing Plaintiffs to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of taking the

deposition of Ms. Conry. Magistrate Judge Snyder then informed the parties that the deposition

must be appropriately noticed and held at the Courthouse for the Federal District and Division

within which Ms. Conry resides pursuant to Rule 45(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. 

This entire action was then informally stayed as the parties litigated a state court action

concerning whether Defendants and/or Defendants’ attorney had breached the agreement

concerning Ms. Conry. On February 8, 2011, Defendants filed a status report in which they

notified the court that the state court action had been resolved by both the trial court and

California Court of Appeal. 

On March 28, 2011, the court denied any outstanding motions for the court to enforce the

Conry agreement. The March 28, 2011 order further found that all outstanding motions and

been resolved and all discovery deadlines and dispositive motion deadlines had long passed. 

The court determined that there was nothing left to do in this action but for the court to set it for

trial. The court ordered the parties to file an Amended Pretrial Statement by July 29, 2011, set

3

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 778 Filed 02/16/12 Page 3 of 6
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 Pretrial Conference for August 12, 2011, and set trial in this action for September 20, 2011.

On July 29, 2011, Defendants file their Pretrial Statement. Plaintiffs did not file a

Pretrial Statement, ask for additional time in which to file a Pretrial Statement, or contact the

court in any way.

On August 11, 2011, the court found that Plaintiffs’ failure to “file a pre-trial

statement renders the pre-trial procedures incomplete and the pre-trial conference impractical.” 

The court then stated:

In light of the prolonged pendency of this case, the lack of activity from

Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs failure to file a pre-trial statement, the representations

made by Defendants in their timely filed pre-trial statement, and the failure to

respond to Defendants’ pre-trial statement, the Court has concerns regarding

Plaintiffs’ prosecution of this case. The Court will vacate the currently set pre-trial

and trial dates, and order Plaintiffs to show cause in writing why they failed

to obey the March 28, 2011 Court order, and why this case should not be

dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or for failure to follow Court orders. 

The court then ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this action would not be dismissed

for Plaintiffs’ failure to file a pre-trial statement. 

On August 11, 2011, Attorney Michael L. Abbott (“Attorney Abbott”), on behalf of

Plaintiffs, filed an application requesting that the court find certain prior orders final for the

purposes of appeal. 

After requesting an extension of time, on September 30, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a response

to the court’s order to show cause. Plaintiffs stated that issues with their attorneys had caused

them to not file a timely pre-trial statement. Plaintiffs also requested to be allowed to appeal the

court’s March 28, 2011 order. As to Attorney Abbott, Plaintiffs stated, in part, the following:

3. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an Order: a) directing

Mr. Abbott to prepare a “Substitution of Counsel” for Plaintiffs to execute and

further direct his Office to e-file same on PACER e-filing system; b) the Order

should clarify that Mr. Abbott is no longer counsel of record for Plaintiffs in the

instant case; and c) that any new counsel for Plaintiffs will be treated fairly as any

officer of the court.

4. The purpose of this Order is to satisfy Plaintiffs new perspective counsel

who will first review the status of the case on PACER regarding any potential

threats of sanctions and other problems regarding Mr. Abbott as Plaintiffs’ former

4

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 778 Filed 02/16/12 Page 4 of 6
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

counsel.

5. Plaintiffs have been unsuccessful to date to hire new counsel to substitute

in as replacement counsel for Mr. Abbott. . . .

October 28, 2011, the court discharged the order to show cause. On the issue of Attorney

Abbott’s representation and the next procedural step to be taken in this action, the court ruled as

follows:

Finally, Plaintiffs request that the court enter an order requiring Attorney

Abbott to withdraw from this action. The court has reviewed the docket and

agrees with Plaintiffs that whether Attorney Abbott is Plaintiffs’ counsel of record

is unclear. The court’s proof of service and list of attorneys representing Plaintiffs

indicate Attorney Abbott is no longer Plaintiffs’ attorney and Plaintiffs are

appearing pro se. The court will issue an order confirming this.

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. The court’s August 11, 2011 order to show case is

DISCHARGED;

2. Plaintiffs’ request for permission to appeal the March 28, 2011

discovery order pursuant to Rule 54(b) is DENIED without

prejudice;

3. Any further motion that seeks the court’s permission to appeal

SHALL be filed within thirty days of this order’s date of service;

and

4. Attorney Abbott is no longer Plaintiffs’ attorney in this action and

Plaintiffs are currently proceeding pro se.

On November 28, 2011, Attorney Abbott, listing in the top right-hand corner of the

document that he is “Attorney for Plaintiffs”, filed an application for the court to find a prior

order final pursuant to Rule 54(b).

On December 5, 2011, the court struck Attorney Abbott’s November 28, 2011 filing

because the court had previously found, at Plaintiffs’ request, that Attorney Abbott is no longer

represents Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs are proceeding in pro se. 

Plaintiffs did not file a motion that seeks the court’s permission to appeal within thirty

days of the court’s October 31, 2011 order. Since the court’s October 31, 2011 order, Plaintiffs

have never filed a motion seeking the court’s permission to appeal. Since December 4, 2011,

Plaintiffs have not filed any pleading with this court.

5

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 778 Filed 02/16/12 Page 5 of 6
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

DISCUSSION

Given the long delays in this action and Plaintiffs’ failure to have any contact with the

court since September 30, 2011, the court has no choice but to consider sanctions for Plaintiffs’

failure to prosecute. A court may sanction or even dismiss an action with prejudice based on a

party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of th

prosecution, “the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious

resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to

defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy

favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9 Cir. th

2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992)); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 th

F.3d 52, 53 (9 Cir. 1995). th

At this time, it appears that all the factors tip in favor of sanctions, including dismissal of

this action. However, the court’s last order did not specifically warn that the failure to file any

motion or document in this action would result in dismissal. As such, the court will only order

Plaintiffs to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed and this action dismissed at this

time.

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING BY

FEBRUARY 29, 2012 WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED BASED ON

PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO TIMELY PROSECUTE THIS ACTION. Plaintiffs are

FOREWARNED that failure to file a response to this order and/or failure to show sufficient

cause as to why this action should not be dismissed, will result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 16, 2012 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

6

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 778 Filed 02/16/12 Page 6 of 6