Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00904/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00904-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ceres Department of Public Safety
Defendant
City of Ceres
Defendant
Klinge
Defendant
Alfonso Zabala
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

ALFONSO ZABALA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF CERES; CERES 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; 

OFFICER KLINGE, first name 

unknown; and DOES 1-20;

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-00904-GEB-SAB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE

The June 23, 2015 Order Setting Status (Pretrial 

Scheduling) Conference scheduled a status conference in this case 

on October 26, 2015, and required the parties to file a joint 

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

scheduling conference. The June 23, 2015 Order further required a 

status report be filed regardless of whether a joint report could 

be procured. (Order 2 n.1, ECF No. 6.) 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 November 2, 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 

Case 1:15-cv-00904-GEB-SAB Document 20 Filed 10/20/15 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

response 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 December 7, 

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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 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 1:15-cv-00904-GEB-SAB Document 20 Filed 10/20/15 Page 2 of 2