Zurich American Ins. Co. of Illinois v. VForce Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE No. 2:18-cv-02066-DAD-CKD COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY v. SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 14 AGAINST THE PARTIES’ COUNSEL VFORCE INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 On February 3, 2025, all parties attended a settlement conference before United States 19 Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson and settled the remaining claims in this action. (Doc. 20 No. 250.) The court issued a minute order on February 4, 2025 directing that the “settlement 21 agreement [was] to be finalized within 30 days.” (Doc. No. 251.) On March 27, 2025, the 22 settling parties1 filed a stipulation requesting that the court extend the deadline to file 23 dispositional documents to April 21, 2025. (Doc. No. 253 at 3.) The court issued a minute order 24 granting the parties’ request the following day. (Doc. No. 254.) However, the parties failed to 25 file dispositional documents, a status report, or a stipulation requesting an extension of the 26

27 1 As noted below, while plaintiff Zurich American Insurance Company of Illinois did not settle its sole claim in this action, asserted against defendant VForce Inc., judgment in plaintiff’s favor 28 has since been entered as to plaintiff’s claim. (See Doc. Nos. 257, 258.) 1 deadline. On April 30, 2025, the court issued another minute order noting that the parties had 2 failed to file dispositional documents and directing the parties to do so by no later than May 9, 3 2025. (Doc. No. 255.) In direct violation of the court’s order, the parties again failed to do so. 4 As noted above, on May 21, 2025 the court issued an order granting plaintiff’s motion for 5 judgment and motion to amend the judgment. (Doc. No. 257.) In that order, the court again 6 stated that “all parties in this action, with the exception of plaintiff, are directed to file 7 dispositional documents in this action by no later than June 6, 2025.” (Doc. No. 257 at 12.) 8 Despite the clear and direct language appearing in that order, the parties failed to comply with the 9 court’s order in this regard for a third time. 10 On June 13, 2025, the court issued an order requiring all parties in this action, with the 11 exception of plaintiff, to show cause in writing within seven (7) days from the date of entry of 12 that order why sanctions should not issue against their counsel due to their repeated failure to 13 abide by the court’s orders. (Doc. No. 260.) On June 20, 2025, only four of the twelve remaining 14 parties in this action—VForce Inc.; Accuire, LLC; Michael A. DiManno; and Employinsure 15 LLC—filed a stipulation to dismiss VForce Inc.’s claims asserted against those three other parties 16 to the stipulation. (Doc. No. 261.) However, the stipulation did not include any mention of 17 VForce Inc.’s claims asserted against the other eight parties in this action—Bean Team 18 Network 2 LLC; Capserv, Inc.; Kaiserkane Consulting, LLC; Richard Gardner; Charles 19 Musgrove; Melissa Oglesby; Amazing Insurance, Inc.; and Alex Campos. Moreover, counsel for 20 Amazing Insurance, Inc. and Alex Campos, attorney Angelica Simpson, did not respond to the 21 order to show cause in any way, thereby failing to comply with the court’s orders for yet a fourth 22 time. 23 Accordingly, the following parties through their counsel of record are hereby ordered to 24 show cause in writing within seven (7) days from the date of entry of this order why sanctions 25 should not issue against their counsel due to their repeated failure to comply with this court’s 26 orders: 27 1. VForce Inc. 28 2. Bean Team Network 2 LLC 1 3. Capserv, Inc. 2 4. Kaiserkane Consulting, LLC 3 5. Richard Gardner 4 6. Charles Musgrove 5 7. Melissa Oglesby 6 8. Amazing Insurance, Inc. 7 9. Alex Campos 8 || See Mark Indus., Ltd. v. Sea Captain’s Choice, Inc., 50 F.3d 730, 732 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting the 9 | court has the inherent power to manage its own proceedings and to “discipline the members of the 10 | bar who appear before it”); see also Erickson v. Newmar Corp., 87 F.3d 298, 303 (9th Cir. 1996) 11 | (noting the court’s discretion under its inherent power to fashion an appropriate sanction). 12 Alternatively, this order to show cause may be discharged by filing dispositional 13 | documents dismissing all remaining claims in this action as to all parties within seven (7) days 14 | from the date of entry of this order. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 | Dated: _ July 16, 2025 Da A. 2d, ye DALE A. DROZD 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28