Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01614/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01614-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nicholas Ivey
Plaintiff
Progressive Direct Insurance Company
Defendant
Misty Dawn Reitz
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

MISTY DAWN REITZ, and 

NICHOLAS IVEY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE 

COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation 

registered to do business in 

the State of California; and 

Does I through CC, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-01614-GEB-EFB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE

The July 9, 2014, Order Setting Status (Pretrial 

Scheduling) Conference scheduled a status conference in this case 

on October 24, 2014, and required the parties to file a joint 

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

scheduling conference. The July 9, 2014 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, each party is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”) 

in a writing to be filed no later than October 27, 2014, 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 2:14-cv-01614-KJM-EFB Document 10 Filed 10/17/14 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 November 24, 

2014, at 9:00 a.m., just prior to the status conference, which is 

rescheduled to that date and time. A status report shall be filed 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2014

 

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 2:14-cv-01614-KJM-EFB Document 10 Filed 10/17/14 Page 2 of 2