Acevedo v. Russell Cellular, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 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 13 RUSSELL CELLULAR, INC., JULY 18, 2022 DEADLINE 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff Marco Acevedo initiated this action in state court on September 8, 2020. (ECF 17 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 19 arbitration. (ECF No. 15.) Since then, the parties, though primarily Plaintiff through counsel 20 Michael Freiman (“Counsel” or “Mr. Freiman”), failed to demonstrate diligence in moving this 21 case forward through arbitration, and failed to timely or appropriately submit status reports or 22 otherwise respond to the Court’s orders. The Court issued numerous orders to show cause, and 23 imposed monetary sanctions on Plaintiff and Counsel. (See ECF Nos. 20, 21, 23, 27, 30, 34, 35, 24 36, 38, 40, 43, 46.) 25 Most recently, on June 9, 2022, the Court ordered Mr. Freiman to pay the Clerk of the 26 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 1 | payment and no communication from Mr. Freiman. The Court shall issue an order to show cause 2 | why further sanctions should not be imposed for Counsel’s failure to pay the sanctions amount 3 | by the deadline to do so. 4 Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 5 | Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 6 | sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 7 | control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 8 | including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 9 | 2000). 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before July 18, 2022, counsel for 11 | Plaintiff, Michael Freiman, shall show cause in writing why he should not be sanctioned for 12 | failing to comply with the Court’s June 9, 2022 order. Failure to comply with this order will 13 | result in the imposition of sanctions.! 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 16 | Dated: _ July 12, 2022 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | ' Counsel is also reminded of the upcoming deadline to file a declaration attesting to the fact he has reported the 28 | sanctions to the State Bar of California. (See ECF No. 50 at 12.)