NEWMAN v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL HOME LOANS, Civ S-11-1780 KJM-DAD. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120309858
Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 07, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 07, 2012
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY MUELLER, District Judge. On September 16, 2011, the court dismissed the above-captioned matter without prejudice and instructed plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days would result in closure of this case. (ECF 10.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint. On February 14, the court ordered plaintiff's attorney, Piotr Gabriel Reysner, to show cause within fourteen (14) days why sanctions should not be imposed against him for failure to
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY MUELLER, District Judge. On September 16, 2011, the court dismissed the above-captioned matter without prejudice and instructed plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days would result in closure of this case. (ECF 10.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint. On February 14, the court ordered plaintiff's attorney, Piotr Gabriel Reysner, to show cause within fourteen (14) days why sanctions should not be imposed against him for failure to n..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY MUELLER, District Judge.
On September 16, 2011, the court dismissed the above-captioned matter without prejudice and instructed plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days would result in closure of this case. (ECF 10.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint. On February 14, the court ordered plaintiff's attorney, Piotr Gabriel Reysner, to show cause within fourteen (14) days why sanctions should not be imposed against him for failure to notify the court of his ineligibility to practice law and to provide the court with plaintiff's current mailing address and phone number. (ECF 13.) Although the order served on him was not returned, Reysner has failed to respond to the order. It is unclear to the court whether plaintiff is aware of Reysner's ineligibility to practice law.
"[A] federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute . . . ." Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 49 (1991). Local Rule 110 states: "Failure of counsel or 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 authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court." Local Rule 184(a) provides that the court "may refer [any matter in which an attorney subject to these rules engages in conduct that may warrant discipline] to the disciplinary body of any Court before which the attorney has been admitted to practice."
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1) Reysner shall pay sanctions in the amount of $150.00 for his failure to file a response to the order to show cause filed on February 14, 2012. Payment shall be in the form of a check made payable to the Clerk of the Court. The sum is to be paid personally by Reysner not later than fourteen (14) days from the filing of this order;
2) The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to refer this matter to the State Bar Court;
3) This case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute;
4) Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF 11) is denied as moot; and
5) The Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
