Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02653/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02653-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Karen Alexandrou
Plaintiff
County of Sacramento
Defendant
Richard Maddox
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

As the Order states: 1

The failure of one or more of the parties to

participate in the preparation of the Joint

(continued...)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD MADDOX; KAREN ALEXANDROU; )

TIEN HONG VO; THONG VO; NGAU )

NGUYEN; and SONIA LUONG, ) 

) 2:06-cv-0072-GEB-PAN (JFM) 

Plaintiffs, )

) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v. ) AND CONTINUING STATUS

) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; COMMUNITY ) CONFERENCE

PROSECUTION UNIT; JAN SCULLY; )

CYNTHIA BESEMER; KAREN MAXWELL; )

NATALIA LUNA; WILLIAM MOTMANS; and )

JAMES COOPER, )

)

Defendants. )

)

The January 12, 2006, Order Setting Status (Pretrial

Scheduling) Conference (“January 12 Order”) scheduled a status

conference in this case for April 17, 2006, and required the parties

to file a joint status report (“JSR”) no later than fourteen days

prior to the scheduling conference. The Order further required that a

status report be filed regardless of whether a JSR could be procured.1

Case 2:06-cv-02653-GEB-EFB Document 13 Filed 04/14/06 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

(...continued) 1

Status Report does not excuse the other

parties from their obligation to timely file

a status report in accordance with this

Order. In the event a party fails to

participate as ordered, the party timely

submitting the status report shall include a

declaration explaining why it was unable to

obtain the cooperation of the other party or

parties. 

January 12 Order at 2 n.1.

“If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the 2

impact of sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the

clients, that is where the impact of the sanction should be

lodged.” Matter of 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. In re Hill, 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985).

2

Plaintiffs and Defendant County of Sacramento (“the County”) filed an

untimely JSR on April 4, 2006, in which they state “the remaining

Defendants have not yet been served.” (JSR at 2.)

Plaintiffs and the County are Ordered to Show Cause (OSC) no

later than 4:00 p.m. on April 24, 2006, why sanctions should not be

imposed against them and/or their counsel for the failure to file a

timely status report. The written response shall state whether

Plaintiffs, the County, and/or their counsel are at fault and whether

a hearing is requested on the OSC. If a hearing is requested, it 2

will be held on June 19, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., just prior to the status

conference, which is rescheduled to that date. 

In accordance with the requirements set forth in the 

January 12 Order, the parties shall file a JSR no later than June 5,

2006. If the remaining Defendants have not been served with a copy of 

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02653-GEB-EFB Document 13 Filed 04/14/06 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

the January 12 Order, Plaintiffs shall serve them with a copy of it

and this Order immediately. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02653-GEB-EFB Document 13 Filed 04/14/06 Page 3 of 3