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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

C.D.D.S., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF SAN PABLO, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 17-cv-00414-JSW 

ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS AND 

FURTHER ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 On July 31, 2017, the Court issued an order to show cause why counsel for Plaintiff, Lateef 

H. Gray, Esq., and counsel for Defendant, Claudia Leed, Esq., should not each be sanctioned 

$250.00 for failing to comply with the Court’s orders. (Dkt. No. 22.) Specifically, the Court 

noted that counsel had failed to file a timely joint case management statement and had filed an 

untimely request to continue the case management conference. Counsels’ responses were due by 

Friday, August 11, 2017. 

A. The Order to Show Cause Is Discharged as to Ms. Leed.

 The Court has reviewed Ms. Leed’s response. By way of explanation, but not excuse, Ms. 

Leed indicates that on Friday, July 28, 2017, while she was on vacation, Mr. Gray contacted her 

requesting that she stipulate to continuing the case management conference. (Dkt. No. 23, at 2.) 

Ms. Leed agreed and revised the proposed stipulation and returned it to Mr. Gray. (Id.) Mr. Gray 

did not file the stipulation until the following Monday, July 31, 2017, after being contacted by the 

Court regarding the missing joint case management statement. (Id.) 

 The Court notes that even had the stipulation been filed on Friday, July 28, 2017, it still 

would have been untimely. This Court’s May 19, 2017 order setting the case management 

conference provides that any request to reschedule the conference must be made at least ten 
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

cal

Lee

HE

goi

atto

B. 

Gra

$25

ord

the

am

C. 

adm

sta

Gra

Gra

san

is d

Da

lendar days b

Noneth

ed’s apology

EREBY DIS

ing forward,

orney. 

Mr. Gra

By cont

ay has not fi

50.00 on Mr

der setting th

e Clerk of the

mount of the s

Mr. Gra

The Co

monished th

nding orders

ay has failed

ay, Esq. is O

nctions in the

due by Wedn

Failure 

IT IS S

ated: August 

before the co

heless, in ligh

y and recogn

CHARGES 

 her obligati

ay Is Sanctio

trast, the Co

iled one. Ac

r. Lateef H. G

he case mana

e Court by n

sanctions on

ay Is Furthe

ourt’s prior o

at any future

s) will be me

d to comply w

ORDERED T

e amount of 

nesday, Aug

of Mr. Gray

SO ORDER

16, 2017 

onference da

ht of the circ

nition of the 

the order to 

ions to comp

oned $250.0

ourt has not r

ccordingly, th

Gray, Esq., f

agement con

no later than 

n to his client

er Ordered to

order to show

e non-compl

et with appro

with the Cou

TO SHOW C

$500.00 for

gust 23, 2017

y to respond 

RED. 

2

ate. (Dkt. No

cumstances d

importance 

show cause

ply with Cou

0.

reviewed Mr

he Court HE

for his failur

nference in th

Wednesday

t. 

o Show Caus

w cause conc

liance with th

opriate sanct

urt’s order to

CAUSE why

r failure to co

7. 

to this order

___

JEF

Un

o. 20, at 2.) 

described in 

of complyin

e as to Ms. L

urt orders ma

r. Gray’s res

EREBY IMP

re to comply

his action. M

y, August 23,

se Why Furt

cluded by sta

he Court’s o

tions.” (Dkt

o show caus

y the Court s

omply with C

r shall be me

__________

FFREY S. W

nited States D

Ms. Leed’s 

ng with the C

Leed. Ms. Le

ay not be del

sponse for th

POSES sanct

y with this Co

Mr. Gray sha

, 2017, and h

ther Sanction

ating: “Coun

orders (inclu

t. No. 22, at 

e. Accordin

should not im

Court orders

et with addit

___________

WHITE 

District Judg

response, an

Court’s order

eed is admon

legated to an

he simple rea

tions in the a

ourt’s May 1

all pay that a

he shall not p

ns Should No

nsel are furth

uding the Cou

2.) As just d

ngly, Mr. Lat

mpose mone

s. Mr. Gray

tional sanctio

__________

ge 

nd given Ms

rs, the Court

nished that 

nother 

ason that Mr

amount of 

19, 2017 

amount to 

pass the 

Not Issue. 

her 

urt’s 

detailed, Mr

teef H. 

tary 

’s response 

ons. 

________ 

. 

t

. 

r.