Pola v. Rao

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 15, 2024
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01154
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Sai Pola, No. 2:19-cv-01154-KJM-CSK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Mahender Rao and Srinivas Rao, 1S Defendants. 16 17 The court held a final pretrial conference for this case on July 11, 2024, during which it 18 | ordered the parties to file within seven days a joint filing identifying the parties’ disputed and 19 | undisputed facts, after which the matter would be submitted and a written Final Pretrial Order 20 | would issue. See Hr’g Mins., ECF No. 51.' The court received a status report filed by plaintiff 21 | only. See Status R., ECF No. 52. Plaintiff’s counsel, Brian R. Katz, filed a signed declaration 22 | with the status report. See Katz Decl., ECF No. 52 at 6-7. Despite the best efforts of Mr. Katz to 23 | engage defense counsel, Vani Moodley, in drafting a joint status report, Mr. Katz says he did not 24 | receive a response from defense counsel in order to file a joint status report by the court imposed 25 | deadline on July 18, 2022. The court subsequently issued an order directing Mr. Moodley to 26 | show cause why he should not be sanctioned in the amount of $250.00 for his lack of compliance

' The court issued the Final Pretrial Order on August 7, 2024. See Final Pretrial Order, ECF No. 57.

1 with the court’s prior order. See Order (July 30, 2024), ECF No. 54. Mr. Moodley has now 2 replied to the order to show cause. See Moodley Reply, ECF No. 56. 3 “Judicial sanctions in civil contempt proceedings may, in a proper case, be employed . . . 4 to coerce the defendant into compliance with the court’s order[.]” United States v. United Mine 5 Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 303–04 (1947). In exercising its discretion to impose sanctions to 6 ensure compliance with its order, the court must consider “the character and magnitude of the 7 harm threatened by continued contumacy, and the probable effectiveness of any suggested 8 sanction in bringing about the result desired.” Id. at 304. “[I]n fixing the amount of a fine to be 9 imposed . . . as a means of securing future compliance, [the court must also] consider the amount 10 of defendant's financial resources and the consequent seriousness of the burden to that particular 11 defendant.” Id. “The measure of the court's power in civil contempt proceedings is determined 12 by the requirements of full remedial relief.” McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 13 193 (1949). Thus, nonmonetary sanctions “such as the production of books” may be appropriate. 14 Id. at 193–94. The court also may award attorney's fees and costs associated with a civil 15 contempt motion. See Donovan v. Burlington N., Inc., 781 F.2d 680, 684 (9th Cir. 1986). 16 In his reply, Mr. Moodley states that on July 17, 2024, he “promptly communicated [his] 17 intention to include the disputed issues of diversity jurisdiction and venue” in the list of disputed 18 facts Mr. Katz had previously emailed him. Moodley Reply ¶ 1. Mr. Moodley does not clarify if 19 he sent an edited version of disputed facts or did anything other than “communicate[ his] 20 intention.” Id. Mr. Moodley admits to receiving a follow up email from Mr. Katz on July 19, 21 2024 before the court’s deadline and not responding to it because he “thought the matter was 22 resolved.” Id. ¶¶ 2–3. He further admits that when Mr. Katz made a final effort to email 23 Mr. Moodley and secure his collaboration on the joint status report on July 22, 2024, his assistant 24 had to alert him of Mr. Katz’s email. See id. ¶ 4. Mr. Moodley declares he “immediately 25 composed a reply email to Katz [and] thought [he] had sent the email,” but realized at the end of 26 the day after his meetings “the email was still in [his] ‘drafts’ folder.” Id. 27 Compliance with the court’s orders is not a perfunctory requirement, but rather a 28 requirement necessary for the court to conduct the case properly and efficiently. Mr. Moodley 1 | had one week’s notice of the deadline for the joint status report. He was as responsible for its 2 | submission as was Mr. Katz. His duty to his client and to this court required he ensure 3 | compliance with the court-imposed deadline, regardless of his mistaken assumptions, other 4 | meetings or unsent emails. Because Mr. Moodley subsequently complied with the court’s order 5 | by signing the most recent joint status report, see Joint Status Rep., ECF No. 55, the court will not 6 | sanction him at this time. However, the court strongly cautions Mr. Moodley that sanctions will 7 | be imposed in the future if he fails to comply with the court’s orders or timely meet and confer 8 | with opposing counsel. 9 The court hereby discharges the order to show cause. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1] DATED: August 14, 2024. / / 12 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE