Thomas v. Ace Market

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY THOMAS, No. 2:24-cv-02234-DAD-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 14 ACE MARKET, et al., AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding through counsel, filed a complaint initiating this action on August 19, 18 2024. (Doc. No. 1.) The same day, a summons was issued and an initial scheduling conference 19 was set for January 14, 2025. (Doc. Nos. 2, 3.) On January 3, 2025, in light of the apparent lack 20 of service on defendants and the parties’ failure to file a joint status report as required, the court 21 reset the initial scheduling conference for February 24, 2025 and ordered the parties to file a 22 status report regarding scheduling no later than February 10, 2025. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff’s 23 counsel, Beilal M. Chatila, again did not file any report in compliance with the court’s orders and 24 failed to appear at the February 24, 2025 initial scheduling conference. (Doc. No. 9) 25 On February 24, 2025, the same day as the initial scheduling conference, plaintiff filed 26 requests for the entry of default by the Clerk of the Court as to defendants Ace Market and 27 Kumar. (Doc. Nos. 7, 8.) Neither such request explained why plaintiff had failed to file a status 28 1 report by December 31, 2024 or February 24, 2025 as ordered and failed to appear at the February 2 24, 2025 scheduling conference as required. 3 On February 27, 2025, plaintiff was ordered to show cause in writing within seven days 4 why this action should not be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and 5 prosecute this action, and counsel for plaintiff was ordered to show cause why sanctions should 6 not issue against him due to his failure to follow the court’s orders on numerous occasions. (Doc. 7 No. 10 at 2.)1 8 Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to the court’s order within seven days. Instead, on 9 March 24, 2025, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action. (Doc. No. 11.) 10 Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal did not address or respond to the court’s order to show 11 cause in any way. 12 Accordingly, plaintiff’s counsel, Beilal M. Chatila, is once again ordered to show 13 cause in writing within seven (7) days from the date of entry of this order why sanctions should 14 not issue against him due to his failure to follow the court’s orders on numerous occasions and 15 why his course of conduct across several cases filed in this district should not be referred to the 16 California State Bar. See Lozano v. Cabrera, 2023 WL 2387583, *2 (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2023)2 17 (directing the Clerk of the Court to forward a copy of the court’s order affirming the imposition of 18 sanctions to the State Bar of California) (citing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6086.7(a)(3), (b)); Mark 19 Indus., Ltd. v. Sea Captain’s Choice, Inc., 50 F.3d 730, 732 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that the court 20 ///// 21 1 The court noted in its prior order that plaintiff’s counsel was also the plaintiff’s attorney of 22 record in Pena v. Motahar Motahar, Case No. 2:24-cv-01760-DAD-CKD, another recent case 23 assigned to the undersigned where the same plaintiff’s counsel failed to file a scheduling report as required on two occasions, failed to appear at the initial scheduling conference, and failed to 24 respond to the court’s order to show cause, resulting in the dismissal of that action. (Doc. No. 10 at 2.) The court has since identified that plaintiff’s counsel is or has been the attorney of record in 25 thirty-two different actions filed in this court, twenty-seven of which were filed on behalf of plaintiff Thomas, and twenty-five of which were closed within days, or at most a few months, 26 after filing. 27 2 Citation to this unpublished Ninth Circuit opinion is appropriate pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 28 36-3(b). 1 | has the inherent power to manage its own proceedings and to “discipline the members of the bar 2 || who appear before it”). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. * Dated: _ April 7, 2025 Da A. 2, sxe 5 DALE A. DROZD ‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28