Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01096/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01096-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dean Petersen
Defendant
Petersen Construction Services
Defendant
United Specialty Insurance Company
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY, a Delaware 

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEAN PETERSEN dba PETERSEN

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, a 

California citizen,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-01096-GEB-DAD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE; FED. R. 

CIV. P. 4(M) NOTICE

The May 20, 2015, Order Setting 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. The May 20, 2015 Order further required a 

status report be filed regardless of whether a joint report could 

be procured. No status report was filed 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 it and/or its counsel 

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

failure to file a timely status report. The written response 

shall also state whether Plaintiff or its counsel is at fault, 

Case 2:15-cv-01096-GEB-DAD Document 7 Filed 08/20/15 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

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

requested, it will be held on November 9, 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. 

Further, Plaintiff is notified under Rule 4(m) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that failure to serve Defendant

Dean Peterson with process within the 120 day period prescribed 

in that Rule may result in this action being dismissed. To avoid 

dismissal, on or before September 16, 2015, Plaintiff shall file 

proof of service for the defendant or a sufficient explanation 

why service was not completed within Rule 4(m)’s prescribed 

service period.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2015

 

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).

Case 2:15-cv-01096-GEB-DAD Document 7 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 2