Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00919/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00919-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aig Life Insurance Company
Plaintiff
Virginia Joy Allen
Defendant
Ellen I. Lua
Defendant

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AIG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, )

) 2:07-cv-919-GEB-DAD

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) SANCTIONS ORDER AGAINST

) PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL

ELLEN I. LUA; VIRGINIA JOY ALLEN, )

) 

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff’s counsel appeared in court on November 13, 2007,

and argued against being sanctioned for her failure to file a timely

status report in this action. Essentially, Plaintiff’s counsel said

she was too busy to notice that she had been electronically served

with the Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference on May

15, 2007 (“May 15 Order”), which required her to file a status report

within a certain time. “It is incumbent upon an attorney practicing

in [any court] to [learn] what is expected by the court . . . and the

consequences inherent in noncompliance.” Aguilar-Escobar v.

Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 136 F.3d 1240, 1244 (9th Cir.

1998). Here, it is obvious that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to read

Case 2:07-cv-00919-GEB-DAD Document 17 Filed 11/13/07 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

the May 15 Order. Plaintiff’s counsel’s argument that she did not

read the May 15 Order because she did not expect to receive the order

so soon is tantamount to saying that she anticipates when an order

will be filed, and if it is filed before whatever she assumes will be

the filing date, she does not engage in sanctionable conduct when she

fails to see the unexpected filed order. Plaintiff is wrong.

Further, “[i]t is . . . no excuse for failing to comply with

[a filing requirement set forth in a Rule 16 order] that attorneys

labor under the pressure of deadlines. Time is a precious luxury

which, if not properly budgeted, can be a powerful foe.” Id. “The

cogs of the wheel of justice move much more smoothly when attorneys

who practice in this court follow the rules of practice and procedure

[that have been] carefully developed and adopted.” Id. 

Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s counsel’s sanctionable conduct,

it was concluded at the hearing that the lecture Plaintiff’s counsel

received in open court was sufficient to satisfy the goals that are

served by imposing sanctions. However, Plaintiff’s counsel is warned

that a significant monetary sanction could be imposed if she fails to

comply with a Rule 16 order again. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-00919-GEB-DAD Document 17 Filed 11/13/07 Page 2 of 2