Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01654/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01654-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Defendant
Johnson & Johnson
Defendant
Morris Marzolla
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

MORRIS MARZOLLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON; and 

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, 

INC.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-01654-GEB-CKD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE; FED. R. 

CIV. P. 4(M) NOTICE

The August 4, 2015, Order Setting Status (Pretrial 

Scheduling) Conference scheduled a status conference in this case 

on November 6, 2015, and required the parties to file a joint 

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

scheduling conference. That Order further required a status 

report be filed regardless of whether a joint report could be 

procured. No timely status report was filed as ordered. Instead, 

Plaintiff filed an untimely Status Report on November 5, 2015, in 

which he states, in relevant part:

On October 29, 2015, a Notice of 

Potential Tag-Along regarding this matter and 

MDL No. 2642, In Re: Fluoroquinolone Products 

Liability Litigation, was filed with the 

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict 

Litigation (“JPML”). A Conditional Transfer 

Order (“CTO”) was subsequently entered by the 

JPML on November 4, 2015. . . . Assuming no 

objections to the CTO are filed, the transfer 

order will become on November 11, 2015. In 

light of the anticipated transfer to the MDL 

Case 2:15-cv-01654-GEB-CKD Document 6 Filed 11/06/15 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

2

next week, Plaintiff respectfully requests 

that the Court cancel the initial case 

management order that is set for November 9, 

2015.

Defendants have not been served with 

Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff anticipates 

that issues regarding service of process, 

including the possibility of a waiver of 

service under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, will be addressed once the 

case is transferred to the MDL.

(Pl.’s Status Report 1:22-2:6, ECF No. 4 (heading omitted).)

Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”) in a writing 

to be filed no later than November 13, 2015, why sanctions should 

not be imposed against him and/or his 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 his counsel is at fault, and whether a hearing is 

requested on the OSC.1 If a hearing is requested, it will be held 

on February 1, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., just prior to the status 

conference, which is rescheduled to that date and time. A joint 

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 with process 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 December 

 

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 2:15-cv-01654-GEB-CKD Document 6 Filed 11/06/15 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

4, 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: November 5, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-01654-GEB-CKD Document 6 Filed 11/06/15 Page 3 of 3