Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

James L. Casity, Jr., On Behalf of Himself and All Others v. Clear Connection Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 6, 2011

JAMES L. CASITY, JR., ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CLEAR CONNECTION CORPORATION,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION; STATUS REPORT/CONFERENCE; OSC MATTER

The parties state in their "Joint Status Report" filed on November 28, 2011: "the parties have reached a settlement in principle and intend on reducing the settlement to writing and stipulating to a dismissal of the action." (Joint Status Report 3:9-11, ECF No. 38.)

Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later than December 19, 2011. Failure to respond by this deadline may be construed as consent to dismissal of this action without prejudice, and a dismissal order could be filed. See E.D. Cal. R. 160(b) ("A failure to file dispositional papers on the date prescribed by the Court may be grounds for sanctions.").

Further, the Status Conference scheduled for hearing on December 12, 2011, is continued to February 13, 2012, commencing at 9:00 a.m., in the event no dispositional document is filed, or if this action is not otherwise dismissed.*fn1 A joint status report shall be filed fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference.

Further, the attorneys' joint response to the October 7, 2011 OSC does not address the Rule 16(f) sanctions standard under which the OSC issued, and is insufficient to avoid exposure to sanctions. See Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1269-70 (9th Cir. 1990) (upholding sanction where counsel failed to appear for a settlement conference because the date "slipped by him"); Ikerd v. Lacy, 852 F.2d 1256, 1258-59 (10th Cir. 1988) ("Neither contumacious attitude nor chronic failure is a necessary threshold to the imposition of sanctions under Rule 16 . . . ."). "It is incumbent upon an attorney practicing in [federal court to] know what is expected by the court, . . . and the consequences inherent in noncompliance." Dela Rosa v. Scottsdale Memorial Health Sys., Inc., 136 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1998). Nevertheless, sanctions will not be imposed this time; however, counsel should be attentive to Rule 16 filing requirements because "[t]he cogs of the wheel of justice move much more smoothly when attorneys who practice in this court follow the rules of practice and procedure[.]" Id.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.