Wells v. Nasf Van Lines, Inc. et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-02226

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 2/1/2018. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 1/22/2018. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/22/2018: # {{1}} Certificate/Proof of Service)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STEPHINE M. WELLS, Case No. 15-cv-02226-KAW 8 Plaintiff, SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 60 10 NASF VAN LINES, INC., et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 On November 3, 2017, the Court granted Attorney Jeffrey Nadel's motion to withdraw as 14 Defendant NASF Van Lines, Inc.'s counsel. (Dkt. No. 58 at 1.) In the order, the Court explained 15 that "[b]ecause Defendant NASF Van Lines, Inc. is a corporation, it is not able to appear in federal 16 court except by counsel." (Id. at 3.) The Court gave Defendant NASF Van Lines, Inc. 45 days to 17 find substitute counsel, and warned that "[i]f Defendant does not file a substitution of counsel 18 within 45 days, then its answer will be deemed stricken and Plaintiff may move to have default 19 entered against it." (Id. at 3-4.) The Court also ordered Attorney Nadel to serve the withdrawal 20 order on Defendant NASF Van Lines, Inc. and to file a proof of service.1 (Id. at 4.) 21 Attorney Nadel did not file the required proof of service. On January 5, 2018, the Court 22 issued an order to show cause, requiring Attorney Nadel to show cause, by January 12, 2018, why 23 he had not filed the proof of service as required by the Court's November 3, 2017 order. 24 25 1 Civil Local Rule 11-5(b) further states: "When withdrawal by an attorney from an action is not 26 accompanied by simultaneous appearance of substitute counsel or agreement of the party to appear pro se, leave to withdraw may be subject to the condition that papers may continue to be served on 27 counsel for forwarding purposes, unless and until the client appears by other counsel or pro se." The Court imposed this condition in its November 3, 2017 order permitting Attorney Nadel to 28 withdraw, and thus Attorney Nadel is obligated to forward all filings in this case to Defendant NASF Van Lines, Inc. (See Dkt. No. 58 at 3.) 1 As of the date of this order, Attorney Nadel has not responded to the order to show cause. 2 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Attorney Nadel to show cause why he should not be sanctioned 3 in the amount of $500.00, by February 1, 2018, by: (1) serving the November 3, 2017 order on 4 Defendant NASF Van Lines, Inc. and filing a proof of service; (2) explaining why Attorney Nadel 5 did not file the proof of service as required by the Court's November 3, 2017 order; (3) explaining 6 why Attorney Nadel did not respond to the Court's January 5, 2018 order to show cause; and (4) 7 explaining why Attorney Nadel should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with the Court's 8 orders. Failure to respond to this order will result in the imposition of sanctions. 9 Attorney Nadel is also directed to serve this order on Defendant NASF Van Lines, Inc., 10 and to file a proof of service accordingly. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: January 22, 2018 Northern District of California United States District Court __________________________________ 13 KANDIS A. WESTMORE 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2