Njang v. Whitestone Group, Inc.
This text of Njang v. Whitestone Group, Inc. (Njang v. Whitestone Group, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________ ) SEBASTIAN NJANG, et al. ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 12-CV-0153(KBJ) ) THE WHITESTONE GROUP INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ) _________________________________ )
ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
On April 30, 2013, the Court issued an order directing the parties to appear at a
post-discovery, pre-motion status conference before the Court on July 2, 2013, at 10:00
AM. Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to appear at that time. Defendant’s counsel orally
represented to the Court that Plaintiffs’ counsel had also failed to appear at the most
recent previous hearing in this case, which a different judge had scheduled on June 25,
2012. In light of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s repeated failure to appear at mandatory hearings ,
on July 3, 2013, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why sanctions should not be
entered against Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Ci v. P. 16(f). (ECF No. 10.)
Defendant subsequently filed its own Motion for Sanctions, asking the Court to dismiss
the case pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 41(b), and to order Plaintiff to pay Defendant’s
attorney’s fees and costs associated with the July 2, 2013 hearing. (ECF No. 13.)
Plaintiffs’ counsel responded to the Order to Show cause on July 15, 2013 . (ECF
No. 12.) Plaintiffs’ counsel’s response stated that he could not “offer any good
1 explanation for missing the conference.” Id. at 1. Plaintiffs’ counsel also filed a
separate memorandum in response to Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions, arguing that
dismissal is too harsh a sanction for the Court to impose in these circumstances , but
providing no arguments as to why attorney’s fees and costs should not be assessed
against him. (ECF No. 14.)
Having read and considered the documents described above, it is hereby
ORDERED that,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(2), Plaintiffs’ counsel shall deliver payment to
Defendant’s counsel in the amount of $1,062.96 to reimburse Defendant’s counsel for
travel expenses incurred in connection with the July 2, 2013, hearing at which
Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to appear. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall pay the foregoing amount
no later than August 23, 2013. As requested in the Defendant’s counsel’s proposed
order, payment shall be made by check payable to the order of Vorys, Sater, Seymour
and Pease, LLP. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the imposition of
additional sanctions.
Date: August 2, 2013 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Njang v. Whitestone Group, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/njang-v-whitestone-group-inc-dcd-2013.