Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00219/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00219-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pantheon Holdings, Inc.
Defendant
William Schappell
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

WILLIAM SCHAPPELL, )

) 2:05-cv-219-GEB-PAN(JFM) 

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v. ) AND CONTINUING STATUS

) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

PANTHEON HOLDINGS, INC., ) CONFERENCE

)

Defendant. )

)

The February 15, 2006, Order Continuing Status (Pretrial

Scheduling) Conference (“February 15 Order”) continued the status

conference in this case to June 5, 2006, and required Plaintiff to

file a status report no later than May 22, 2006, in which he was “only

required to explain the status of the default issue.” No status

report was filed as ordered.

Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause (OSC) no later than 4:00

p.m. on June 9, 2006, why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule

16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against counsel and/or

Plaintiff for the failure to file a timely status report, as ordered. 

The written response shall state whether Plaintiff or counsel is at

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00219-GEB-PAN Document 37 Filed 05/26/06 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

“If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the 1

impact of sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the

clients, that is where the impact of the sanction should be

lodged.” Matter of 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. In re Hill, 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985).

2

fault and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC. If a hearing is 1

requested, it will be held on August 14, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., just

prior to the status conference, which is rescheduled to that date. 

Since Plaintiff’s January 19, 2006, indicates the only matter

remaining for decision is the default of Defendant, Plaintiff shall

file a further status report no later than July 31, 2006, in which he

is only required to explain the status of the default issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00219-GEB-PAN Document 37 Filed 05/26/06 Page 2 of 2