Trustees of the Operating Engineers Pension Trust et al v. Maui One Excavating, Inc. et al
Filing
28
ORDER to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Sanctioned. The Court ORDERS attorney Defendants Maui One Excavating, Inc., Paitaka Miyahira and Tasey Miyahira show cause in writing, no later than February 28, 2013, why the Court should not issue s anctions against them for failure to comply with a Court order up to and including entry of default judgment pursuant to Local Rule IA 4-1, Fed. R.Civ. P. 16(f), and/or the Court's inherent authority. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/22/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING ENGINEERS )
PENSION TRUST, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MAUI ONE EXCAVATING, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
13
Case No. 2:12-cv-00338-KJD-NJK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY DEFENDANTS SHOULD
NOT BE SANCTIONED
For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby ORDERS attorney Defendants Maui One
14
Excavating, Inc., Paitaka Miyahira and Tasey Miyahira to show cause in writing, no later than
15
February 28, 2013, why the Court should not issue sanctions against them for failure to comply with
16
a Court order up to and including entry of default judgment pursuant to Local Rule IA 4-1, Fed. R.
17
Civ. P. 16(f), and/or the Court’s inherent authority. Defendants’ attorney of record, Gary Branton, is
18
further ORDERED to serve this order to show cause on Defendants and to file a declaration no later
19
than February 23, 2013 indicating that he has so served Defendants and the manner of service.
20
On February 12, 2013, the Court also issued a minute order scheduling a hearing on Mr.
21
Branton’s motion to withdraw as counsel. Docket No. 23.1 That minute order stated in relevant part
22
that:
23
The Court hereby schedules a hearing on the pending motion to be held on February
21, 2013 at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 3D. Defendants Maui One Excavating, Inc.,
Paitaka Miyahira and Tasey Miyahira are hereby ordered to attend the hearing. Any
24
25
26
27
28
1
This was the second scheduled hearing on this motion, as Mr. Branton had failed to notify
Defendants of the previous hearing set on the motion. The tortured history on the pending motion to
withdraw is more fully discussed in the order to show cause directed at Gary Branton being issued
concurrently with this order to show cause.
1
2
3
4
new counsel retained to represent Defendants in this matter is also ordered to attend.
THERE WILL BE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THESE APPEARANCE
REQUIREMENTS. No later than February 14, 2013, Mr. Branton shall notify
Defendants of this order that they appear and shall file with the Court a declaration
indicating the manner in which he notified them. With respect to Defendant Maui
One Excavating, Inc., the Court wishes to highlight that it must retain counsel
expeditiously as corporations may appear in federal court only through licensed
counsel. U.S. v. High Country Broad. Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993).
5
6
7
8
9
Docket No. 23 (emphasis in original).
On February 21, 2013, the Court called this matter for the hearing on the pending motion to
withdraw as scheduled. Defendants failed to appear as ordered.
For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby ORDERS attorney Defendants Maui One
10
Excavating, Inc., Paitaka Miyahira and Tasey Miyahira to show cause in writing, no later than
11
February 28, 2013, why the Court should not issue sanctions against them for failure to comply with
12
a Court order up to and including entry of default judgment pursuant to Local Rule IA 4-1, Fed. R.
13
Civ. P. 16(f), and/or the Court’s inherent authority.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
DATED: February 22, 2013.
17
18
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
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?
