William Redick v. Terricorp, Inc.

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 WILLIAM REDICK, Case No. 1:26-cv-01968-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING SANCTIONS ORDER AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY 13 v. SANCTIONS

14 TERRICORP, INC, (Docs. 18, 19)

15 Defendant. 14-Day Deadline 16 17 Background 18 Plaintiff William Redick (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on 19 March 12, 2026, against Defendant Work Truck Solutions, Inc., doing business as Kingsburg Truck 20 Center.1 (Doc. 1). On May 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) as a matter 21 of course removing Defendant Work Truck Solutions, Inc. from this action, which was construed 22 as a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to Defendant Work Truck Solutions, Inc. 23 (Docs. 7, 9). 24 On June 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue the initial scheduling conference. (Doc. 25 11). On June 6, 2026, considering Plaintiff’s filing of a FAC, and because newly added Defendant 26 Terricorp, Inc. (“Defendant”) had not yet been served or appeared in this action, the Court granted 27 1 Defendant Work Truck Solutions, Inc. was dismissed from this action following Plaintiff’s 28 filing of a first amended complaint. 1 in part Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to continue the scheduling conference to August 12, 2026. (Doc. 2 12). In the Court’s order, Plaintiff was directed to “promptly effect service upon Defendant of 3 summons, complaint, all case opening documents (see Doc. 2) …, and a copy of this minute order, 4 and shall promptly file proof of service of same.” Id. (emphasis added). On June 15, 2026, the 5 parties filed a stipulation to extend time for Defendant to respond to the complaint pursuant to Local 6 Rule 144(a). (Doc. 13). Defendant timely filed an answer to the complaint on June 29, 2026. (Doc. 7 14). 8 Plaintiff did not promptly comply with the Court’s order to file proof of service upon 9 Defendant of the case opening documents or a copy of the Court’s minute order directing the same. 10 Accordingly, when there still was no evidence of Plaintiff’s compliance approximately four weeks 11 after the Court’s entry of its order, on June 30, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in 12 writing no later than July 2, 2026, why sanctions should not be imposed for Plaintiff's failure to 13 comply with a court order. (Doc. 16). In its order, the Court permitted Plaintiff to comply with the 14 order in the alternative by filing the proof of service by that same deadline and was admonished 15 that “[a]ny failure by Plaintiff to timely comply with this order will result in the imposition of 16 sanctions, up to and including a recommendation to dismiss this action.” Id. 17 On July 1, 2026, Plaintiff filed a summons returned executed attesting to service on 18 Defendant of the summons and complaint; however, the filing was silent about service of the case 19 opening documents (see Doc. 2) or a copy of the Court’s June 3, 2026, minute order (see Doc. 12). 20 Given Plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with the Court’s orders, on July 6, 2026, the Court 21 ordered Plaintiff to pay the Clerk of the Court $100.00 per day from the date of the order until he 22 files proof of service attesting that all case opening documents and a copy of the Court’s June 3, 23 2026, minute order have been served upon Defendant. (Doc. 18). Plaintiff was admonished that 24 his filing of a proof of service will not relieve Plaintiff of the sanction imposed commencing on the 25 date of the order, and that the daily deadline to comply expires at the close of business each day at 26 5:00 p.m. Id. at 4. 27 Discussion 28 That same day, Plaintiff filed proof of service attesting that all case opening documents and 1 | acopy of the Court’s June 3, 2026, minute order was served upon Defendant’s counsel via email 2 | on July 6, 2026, pursuant to Local Rule 135(f). (Doc. 19). 3 In light of Plaintiff's prompt compliance with the Court’s sanctions order, the Court shall 4 | discharge further sanctions and shall impose a total sanction of $100.00 based on the Court’s order. 5 | Accordingly, to deter Plaintiff and counsel from future violations of the Court’s orders and the 6 | Local Rules and to ensure they abide by all applicable deadlines in this case, the Court will impose 7 | a total sanction of $100.00. See, e.g., Gen. Sig. Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 933 F.2d 1013 (9th Cir. 8 | 1991) (affirming district court’s award of monetary sanction that “was coercive and not 9 | compensatory” as “an amount required to prevent future violations”) (unpublished). The Court 10 | concludes that such a sanction is sufficient but not more than necessary to accomplish its coercive 11 | aim light of the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued delinquency. See 12 | Gen. Sig. Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1986). 13 Conclusion and Order 14 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiff SHALL pay the Clerk of the Court $100.00 in full satisfaction of the sanction 16 imposed in this case no later than July 21, 2026; 17 2. Plaintiff's counsel SHALL promptly file proof of payment with the Court once 18 payment is made; and 19 3. Ifsuch payment and proof of payment is not timely made, additional sanctions of 20 $50.00 per day shall issue from July 21, 2026, until full payment is received. 21 | ITISSO ORDERED. 2 | Dated: _ July 8, 2026 | Wr bY 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28