Smith v. FCA US, LLC

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

10
1
12
13
14

Pase 1:25-cv-00036-KES-EGC Document 33 _ Filed 10/14/26 Pageiof4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHADWICK W. SMITH, Case No. 1:25-cv-0036-KES-EGC

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
Plaintiff CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT
y BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO
FCA US$. LLC COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S

a ORDERS; OSC HEARING SET FOR
Defendant. OCTOBER 29, 2026

(Doc. 28)

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AUTHENTICATED / iS)
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
GPO

I. BACKGROUND

On August 28, 2026, the Court issued an Order Setting Settlement Conference and
Parameters. (Doc. 26). In that order, the Court ordered Plaintiff to “submit a written itemization
of damages and a settlement demand to Defendant’s counsel,” which was to be done by
September 8, 2026. (Doc. 26 at 1). The Court further ordered the parties to submit pre-
settlement statements by October 8, 2026. (/d. at 2). Only the lead trial counsel for the parties
were ordered to appear at the pre-settlement conference discussion. (/d. at 4).

On October 9, 2026, after failing to receive Plaintiff's statement, the Court issued an
order providing Plaintiff with the opportunity to submit his statement by the end of the day and
was warned that a failure to timely comply may result in the issuance of sanctions. (Doc. 28).
Plaintiff did not submit his statement until 9:06 a.m. on the day of the pre-settlement discussion,

which was set for October 14, 2026.

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
2
On October 14, 2026, nearly ten minutes after the pre-settlement discussion was
supposed to begin with Plaintiff’s lead counsel, Jonathan Medina appeared for Plaintiff. 	Mr.
Medina was not listed as attorney of record, was not designated lead trial counsel, was not
disclosed as the attorney who would appear in Plaintiff’s confidential statement and he did not
have any knowledge about the case. Mr. Medina advised the court he was told “60 seconds ago”
to make the appearance. No explanation was provided for his colleague’s failure to appear, nor
was any justification offered for the late settlement statement. Further, it appears that Plaintiff
failed to comply with the Court’s order by not providing Defendant a written pre-settlement
demand by the required September 8, 2026 deadline. (Doc. 26 at 1).
II. 	DISCUSSION
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the underlying purpose of the rules is
to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. To
effectuate this purpose, the rules provide for sanctions against parties that fail to comply with
court orders or that unnecessarily multiply the proceedings. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37(b).
The Court also possesses inherent authority to impose sanctions to manage its own
affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Chambers v. NASCO,
Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). 	The Court’s inherent power is that which is necessary to the
exercise of all others, including to protect the due and orderly administration of justice and
maintain the authority and dignity of the Court. Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764
(1980). A court may impose sanctions, including terminating sanctions, for a party’s failure to
obey a court order or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
1258, 126061 (9th Cir. 1992) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to comply with an
order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing terminating
sanctions for failure to comply with a court order). 	Similarly, the Local Rules of the Eastern
District of California provide that “[f]ailure 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
Case 1:25-cv-00036-KES-EGC Document 33 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 4

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
3
sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule
110.
III. 	CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Considering the numerous failures of Plaintiff’s counsel to comply with this Court’s
directives, specifically:
1. 	Lead trial counsel’s failure to appear at the pre-settlement discussion on October 14,
2026 at 10:00a.m.;
2. 	The failure to offer any explanation for the untimely submission of the settlement
statement, which was due on October 8, 2026;
3. 	The failure to exchange a pre-settlement demand, which was due on September 8,
2026; and
4. 	Plaintiff’s counsel’s late appearance at the scheduled proceedings on October 14,
2026;
The Court HEREBY ORDERS counsel for Plaintiff to show cause in writing no
later than October 26, 2026, why sanctions should not be imposed for the numerous failures to
obey this Court’s orders as outlined herein.
A hearing on the order to show cause is set for October 29, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in
Department 7 before Magistrate Judge Erin Guy Castillo.
The settlement conference scheduled for October 29, 2026 at 10:00a.m. will remain as
set. 	Lead trial counsel shall appear with their respective party in person. 	Requests for remote
appearances will not be considered. Failure to comply with this order to show cause will result
in the imposition of sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 	October 14, 2026
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00036-KES-EGC Document 33 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 4

10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 1:25-cv-00036-KES-EGC Document 33

Filed 10/14/26

Page 4 of 4