Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02008/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02008-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Scott Johnson,

Plaintiff,

v.

Claudia R. Delgado-Ramirez;

J Issac Castro; Elvira 

Castro; and Does 1-10,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-02008-GEB-CKD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE

The March 12, 2015 Minute Order, (ECF No. 26),

scheduled a status conference in this case on April 20, 2015, and 

required the parties to file a joint status report no later than 

fourteen (14) days prior to the scheduling conference. No status 

report was filed as ordered.

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

in a writing to be filed no later than April 20, 2015, why 

sanctions should not be imposed against the party and/or the 

party’s counsel under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure for failure to file a timely status report. The written 

responses shall also state whether the party or the party’s 

counsel is at fault, and whether a hearing is requested on the 

OSC.1 If a hearing is requested, it will be held on May 4, 2015, 

 

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

Case 2:14-cv-02008-JAM-CKD Document 27 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 2
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

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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2015

 

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).

Case 2:14-cv-02008-JAM-CKD Document 27 Filed 04/14/15 Page 2 of 2