United States District Court, N.D. California
SANDRA L. CONNOLLY, Plaintiff,
I2A TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO PRO SE DEFENDANT VICTOR
BATINOVICH AS TO WHY HIS ANSWER SHOULD NOT BE
M. RYU UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Defendant Victor Batinovich has repeatedly violated court
orders, as well as failed to respond to court-ordered
deadlines, and failed to attend court proceedings. The court
now issues this Order to Show Cause as to why his Answer
should not be stricken pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 16(f) and 37(b)(2)(C). Batinovich must show cause
in writing by April 10, 2017,
otherwise the court will strike his Answer.
RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
P. Cohn represented Batinovich in this case. On January 13,
2017, Cohn filed a motion to withdraw, citing
Batinovich's failure to pay legal fees. [Docket No. 34].
January 19, 2017, the court set the hearing on the motion to
withdraw for February 23, 2017, and ordered Batinovich to
personally appear at that hearing. [Docket No. 35]. The court
instructed Cohn to serve the personal appearance order
“on all last known mailing addresses and e-mail
addresses for Mr. Batinovich, and to leave a voicemail
message on Mr. Batinovich's most current phone
number.” [Docket No. 35].
failed to appear at the hearing on February 23, 2017 as
ordered. [Docket No. 40]. The court granted Cohn's motion
to withdraw effective immediately, but ordered that Cohn
“shall continue to receive all papers served in this
action and all orders issued by the court and shall serve
them on Mr. Batinovich with a proof of service that is filed
for a period of 90 days, or until substitute counsel makes an
appearance, whichever occurs sooner.” [Docket No. 40].
The court stated on the record that it would issue an order
to show cause to Batinovich as to why he should not face
sanctions for his failure to appear at the hearing. [Docket
No. 40]. The court set a further case management conference
for March 29, 2017. [Docket No. 40].
February 23, 2017, immediately following the hearing, the
court issued two Orders to Show Cause to Batinovich:
1. Order to Show Cause for Failure to Appear at Hearing
[Docket No. 37]: This order required Batinovich to respond by
March 9, 2017 with a written statement explaining why the
court should not impose monetary sanctions for his failure to
appear at the February 23, 2017 hearing on the motion to
2. Order to Show Cause Re Service of Third-Party Complaint
[Docket No. 39]: This order required Batinovich, as the
third-party plaintiff, to show cause in writing by March 23,
2017 why his third-party complaint should not dismissed under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to serve the
summons and third-party complaint on the third-party
served these orders on Batinovich, as well as the court's
February 23, 2017 minute order, on March 7, 2017 via U.S
Mail, e-mail, and Federal Express. See Proof of
Service [Docket No. 49]. Batinovich failed to respond to
either of the February 23, 2017 Orders to Show
March 2, 2017, the court issued another order to Batinovich.
[Docket No. 41]. As Batinovich is now self-represented, this
order required him to provide the court with current contact
information in the form of a current mailing address,
telephone number, and e-mail address by March 13, 2017. Cohn
served this order on Batinovich via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and
Federal Express on March 2, 2017. See Proof of
Service [Docket No. 47]. Batinovich failed to respond to the
March 2, 2017 order.
March 29, 2017, Batinovich did not appear for the case
management conference. As a self-represented defendant,
Batinovich is required to attend all case management
conferences. Batinovich was notified about the March 29, 2017
case management conference. See Proof of Service
[Docket No. 49].
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE:
light of Batinovich's repeated violations of court
orders, failures to respond to court-ordered deadlines, and
failures to attend court proceedings, the court issues this
Order to Show Cause as to why Batinovich's Answer should
not be stricken under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f)
and 37(b)(2)(C) for failure to obey court orders. See,