Acevedo v. Russell Cellular, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARCO ACEVEDO, Case No. 1:20-cv-01440-JLT-SAB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 12 v. SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO PAY SANCTIONS RUSSELL CELLULAR, INC., JULY 18, 2022 DEADLINE 14 Defendant.

16 Plaintiff Marco Acevedo initiated this action in state court on September 8, 2020. (ECF No. 1-3.) On October 8, 2020, Defendant Russell Cellular, Inc. removed the action to this Court.

18 (ECF No. 1.) On May 19, 2021, the Court stayed this matter to allow the parties to participate in arbitration. (ECF No. 15.) Since then, the parties, though primarily Plaintiff through counsel Michael Freiman (“Counsel” or “Mr. Freiman”), failed to demonstrate diligence in moving this case forward through arbitration, and failed to timely or appropriately submit status reports or otherwise respond to the Court’s orders. The Court issued numerous orders to show cause, and imposed monetary sanctions on Plaintiff and Counsel. (See ECF Nos. 20, 21, 23, 27, 30, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 43, 46.)

25 Most recently, on June 9, 2022, the Court ordered Mr. Freiman to pay the Clerk of the Court a total sanctions amount $1,400.00, to be paid within thirty (30) days of entry of the order.

27 Given the thirty (30) day period expired on July 9, 2022, a Saturday, Mr. Freiman was thus required to pay the sanctions amount by Monday, July 11, 2022. The Court has received no | payment and no communication from Mr. Freiman. The Court shall issue an order to show cause | why further sanctions should not be imposed for Counsel’s failure to pay the sanctions amount | by the deadline to do so.

4 Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these | Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all | sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to | control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, | including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. | 2000).

10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before July 18, 2022, counsel for | Plaintiff, Michael Freiman, shall show cause in writing why he should not be sanctioned for | failing to comply with the Court’s June 9, 2022 order. Failure to comply with this order will | result in the imposition of sanctions.!

15 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee | Dated: _ July 12, 2022 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | ' Counsel is also reminded of the upcoming deadline to file a declaration attesting to the fact he has reported the | sanctions to the State Bar of California. (See ECF No. 50 at 12.)