Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00018/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00018-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

STEPHEN HEINEMANN, 

NO. CIV. S-07-0018 FCD DAD

Plaintiff,

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v. RE SANCTIONS

COPPERHILL APARTMENTS, et al., 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff filed this action on January 2, 2007. On 

April 24, 2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff

failed to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition to

defendant’s motion in compliance with Local Rule 78-230(c). The

court re-set the hearing date on defendants’ motion and issued an

order to show cause as to why plaintiff’s counsel should not be

sanctioned in the amount of $150.00 for failing to comply with

the court’s local rules. Plaintiff subsequently filed an

opposition to defendants’ motion. However, plaintiff failed to

respond to the court’s order to show cause either separately or

Case 2:07-cv-00018-FCD-DAD Document 17 Filed 10/18/07 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

in his opposition to defendants’ motion. On July 31, 2007, the

court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to comply with

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and ordered

plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty (30)days of

the order. Additionally, plaintiff’s counsel was ordered to pay

sanctions in the amount of $150.00.

On August 31, 2007, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. 

That same day, plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration, stating

that he did not have the means to pay the sanction at that time,

but that he intended to pay the sanction by the end of September

2007. As of October 18, 2007, the docket does not reflect that

plaintiff’s counsel has paid the sanction. 

On September 21, 2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss

plaintiff’s amended complaint for a hearing on October 26, 2007. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(c), plaintiff’s opposition or

statement of non-opposition should have been filed on or before

October 12, 2007. Plaintiff has again failed to comply with the

Local Rules by failing to file a response to defendants’ motion.

In light of the procedural history of this case, the court

makes the following orders:

1. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to show cause why this

case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute 

and for failure to comply with the court’s orders and

Local Rules. 

2. Alternatively, plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to show

cause why he should not be sanctioned in the amount of

$200.00 for failing to file an opposition or notice of

non-opposition to defendant’s motion in compliance with

Case 2:07-cv-00018-FCD-DAD Document 17 Filed 10/18/07 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

Local Rule 78-230(c).

3. Plaintiff’s counsel shall file his response to the

order to show cause on or before October 26, 2007.

4. The hearing set for October 26, 2007 is VACATED. Based

upon the substance of plaintiff’s response to the order

to show cause, the court will determine whether and

when to reset the hearing on defendants’ motion to

dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 18,2007

Case 2:07-cv-00018-FCD-DAD Document 17 Filed 10/18/07 Page 3 of 3