Peay et al v. Midland Mortgage Company et al

Filing 58

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 3/4/2010 ORDERING Sharon L. Lapin to show cause, on or before 3/15/2010, why further sanctions in the amount of $500 should not now be imposed for her failure to obey the court's Order of February 16, 2010. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sharon L. Lapin personally appear 3/22/2010 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Judge William B. Shubb for hearing on the Order to Show Cause. (Matson, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. MIDLAND MORTGAGE COMPANY; MORTGAGE PROCESS CENTER; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; T.D. SERVICES, INC.; RON ALLEN AND ASSOCIATES; RONNIE D. ALLEN; MARISSA BACO and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants. / ----oo0oo---On February 3, 2010, the court issued an Order to Show Cause (Docket No. 50) why counsel for plaintiff Sharon L. Lapin should not be sanctioned $200 for failing to timely file an opposition or notice of non-opposition to defendant Midland Mortgage Company and U.S. Bank National Association's Motion to 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ----oo0oo---DERALD PEAY and DEBRA PEAY, Plaintiffs, NO. CIV. 2:09-2228 WBS KJM ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dismiss (Docket No. 43) in violation of Local Rule 230. After reviewing Lapin's Declaration in response to the Order to Show Cause, the court on February 16, 2010, issued an Order requiring Lapin to, within ten days, either pay sanctions in the amount of $200 or request the matter be scheduled for a formal hearing. (Docket No. 55.) Lapin failed to comply with the court's Order and continues to violate it to this day. Rather, in what appears to the court to be an attempt to evade paying the sanctions ordered, Lapin filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of the case on February 26, 2010. (Docket No. 57.) Local Rule 110 provides that "Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court." As several other judges in this district have noted, Lapin has repeatedly failed to comply with the Local Rules and has failed to comply with court orders.1 See, e.g., Cruz v. Aurora Loan Servs. et al., No. 2:093212, Memorandum and Order (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2010 (Docket No. 26)) (England, J.) (ordering Lapin to personally appear for a hearing on an Order to Show Cause why she should not be sanctioned for repeated failure of the Local Rules); see also Mensah v. GMAC Mortgage et al., No. 2:09-3196, Order (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2010 (Docket No. 41)) (Karlton, J.) (dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, fining Ms. Lapin $150, issuing an Order to Show Cause why a further fine of $500 should not issue, and referring Ms. Lapin to the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar of California for failing to file a timely opposition or notice of non-opposition to a motion to dismiss and for further violating the court's order that she so file either an opposition or notice of non-opposition by an extended deadline). At the February 25, 2010 hearing, Judge England ordered Lapin to pay past-due and new sanctions totaling $500, which Lapin paid before she the left the courthouse that day. 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: SHARON L. LAPIN IS HEREBY ORDERED to show cause, on or before March 15, 2010, why further sanctions in the amount of $500 should not now be imposed for her failure to obey the court's Order of February 16, 2010. SHARON L. LAPIN IS FURTHER ORDERED to personally appear before this Court at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, March 22, 2010, in Courtroom 5 for hearing on the Order to Show Cause. IT IS SO ORDERED. March 4, 2010 Cruz, No. 2:09-3212. (Docket No. 30.) 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?