Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02970/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02970-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dornoch, Inc.
Defendant
Cynthia Hopson
Plaintiff
Maria Mueller
Defendant
Thomas Nokes
Defendant
Tracy Ford
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CYNTHIA HOPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DORNOCH, INC., as itself and 

dba Tracy Ford; MARIA 

MUELLER, as an individual

and dba Tracy Ford; THOMAS 

NOKES; and DOES 1-10, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-02970-GEB-AC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE; FED. R. 

CIV. P. 4(M) NOTICE

The December 24, 2014, Order Setting Status (Pretrial 

Scheduling) Conference scheduled a status conference in this case 

on February 23, 2015, and required the parties to file a joint 

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

scheduling conference. The December 24, 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, Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”) 

in a writing to be filed no later than February 23, 2015, why 

sanctions should not be imposed against her and/or her 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 her counsel is at fault, 

Case 2:14-cv-02970-GEB-AC Document 4 Filed 02/13/15 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 May 18, 2015, 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. 

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

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that failure to serve each 

defendant within the 120 day period prescribed in that Rule may 

result in the unserved defendant(s) and/or this action being 

dismissed. To avoid dismissal, on or before April 24, 2015, 

Plaintiff shall file proof of service for each defendant or a 

sufficient explanation why service was not completed within Rule 

4(m)’s prescribed service period.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 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 2:14-cv-02970-GEB-AC Document 4 Filed 02/13/15 Page 2 of 2