Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02021/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02021-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Green Man Recycling, Inc.
Defendant
Scott Johnson
Plaintiff
Louis H. Voss
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SCOTT JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LOUIS H. VOSS; GREEN MAN 

RECYCLING, INC., a California 

Corporation, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-2021-TLN-EFB 

ORDER 

 This matter was before the court on January 28, 2015, for hearing on defendant Green 

Man Recycling, Inc.’s (“GMRI”) motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(5) for ineffective service of process (ECF No. 5) and the court’s order to show cause 

directed at plaintiff for failure to file a timely opposition to GMRI’s motion (ECF No. 9). 

Attorney Amanda Lockhart appeared on behalf of plaintiff. However, GMRI failed to appear at 

the hearing on its own motion. Accordingly, the hearing was continued to February 11, 2015, and 

GMRI was ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for its failure to appear. 

ECF No. 17. GMRI has since submitted a response to the court’s order to show cause. ECF No. 

19. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-02021-TLN-EFB Document 23 Filed 02/18/15 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

 At the February 11, 2015 hearing, Ms. Lockhart appeared on behalf of plaintiff, and 

attorney Tonya Hubinger appeared on behalf of GMRI. At the hearing, GMRI represented that its 

motion to dismiss is now moot and withdrew the motion on the record. Accordingly, the Clerk of 

the Court is directed to terminate plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 5. 

 As for the two pending orders to show cause, neither plaintiff nor GMRI have shown good 

cause for their failures to comply with this court’s local rules. Therefore, for the reasons stated on 

the record, Ms. Hubinger is sanctioned in the amount of $150, which is intended to partially 

compensate plaintiff for the reasonable expenses incurred in appearing at the January 28, 2015 

hearing.1 See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or 

with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 

authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”). This sum shall be paid 

to plaintiff no later than 14 days from the date of this order. Upon payment to plaintiff, Ms. 

Hubinger shall file an affidavit with the court which states that the sanction was paid personally 

by her, out of personal funds, and is not and will not be billed, directly or indirectly, to her client 

or in any way made the responsibility of her client as attorneys’ fees or costs. 

DATED: February 18, 2015. 

 

 1

 The unreimbursed portion of plaintiff’s counsel’s expenses for travel to and time 

expended for the January 28 hearing, shall serve as a sanction for plaintiff’s unexcused failure to 

timely file an opposition to GMRI’s motion to dismiss. 

Case 2:14-cv-02021-TLN-EFB Document 23 Filed 02/18/15 Page 2 of 2