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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLORIA SALTER,

NO. CIV. S-04-29 LKK/DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI; and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN’S 

AFFAIRS,

Defendants.

 /

In an order dated May 16, 2005, the court ordered 

plaintiff to show cause in writing why sanctions should not issue

for failure to file a timely opposition in accordance with Local

Rule 78-230. The court is in receipt of plaintiff counsel’s

response. No good cause being shown, counsel for plaintiff is

SANCTIONED in the amount of one hundred and fifty ($150.00)

dollars. This sum shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court no later

than thirty (30) days from the effective date of this order. 

////

Case 2:04-cv-00029-LKK -DAD Document 20 Filed 05/27/05 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

1 Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to Local Rule 83-182(f).

The court emphasizes that it is counsel’s responsibility to keep

the court apprised of his current e-mail address. The court is

also compelled to note that it looks with skepticism upon

plaintiff’s counsel’s explanation that he failed to receive the

summary judgment motion because his e-mail address,

RKWerner@iwincases.net, did not allow for his receipt of the motion

for summary judgment. The court’s own investigation reveals that

plaintiff’s counsel updated his e-mail address with the court to

RKWerner@iwincases.net on March 2, 2005, and that since that time

the court has received no “bounced back” messages on that

particular address, strongly suggesting that plaintiff’s counsel

has received and continues to receive notices from the court and

other parties.

2

Counsel shall file an affidavit accompanying the payment of this

sanction which states that it is paid personally by counsel, out

of personal funds, and is not and will not be billed, directly or

indirectly, to the client or in any way made the responsibility of

the client as attorneys' fees or costs.

In the May 16, 2005 Order, the court also continued the May

23, 2005 law and motion date to June 13, 2005. In addition to the

response to the Order to Show Cause, counsel for plaintiff has

requested an extension of time to respond to defendant’s motion for

summary judgment, explaining to the court that he only learned of

the filing of the motion last Thursday, May 19, 2005, when he ran

into defense counsel at the courthouse. He explains that this late

notification was due to a change in his e-mail address which is not

on file with the court. 

No good cause have been shown, the court would ordinarily deny

such a request.1 Despite plaintiff’s counsel’s lack of diligence,

given the potential prejudice to his client, the hearing on the

motion for summary judgment presently before the court is CONTINUED

Case 2:04-cv-00029-LKK -DAD Document 20 Filed 05/27/05 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

3

to July 18, 2005 where it will be called on the court's regularly

scheduled Law and Motion Calendar, beginning at 10:00 a.m. In

addition, the court makes the following ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff shall electronically file and serve any

opposition papers to defendant's motion for partial summary

judgment by no later than June 24, 2005.

2. Defendant shall electronically file and serve any reply

to plaintiff's opposition by no later than July 1, 2005. 

3. All parties shall e-mail a copy of their briefs in Word

or Wordperfect format to Tim Hinkle, Judicial Assistant, at

thinkle@caed.uscourts.gov. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 27, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-00029-LKK -DAD Document 20 Filed 05/27/05 Page 3 of 3