Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Chadwick W. Smith sued FCA US, LLC in the Eastern District of California. On August 28, 2026, the magistrate judge issued an order setting a settlement conference and its parameters (Doc. 26). Plaintiff was directed to send Defendant's counsel a written itemization of damages and a settlement demand by September 8, 2026. The parties were to submit pre-settlement statements by October 8, 2026. Only lead trial counsel were ordered to attend the pre-settlement conference discussion.
The Court did not receive Plaintiff's statement. On October 9, 2026, it issued a second order (Doc. 28) allowing Plaintiff until the end of that day and warning that untimely compliance might result in sanctions. According to the order, Plaintiff did not submit the statement until 9:06 a.m. on October 14, 2026, the day of the pre-settlement discussion. About ten minutes after the discussion was due to begin, a different attorney appeared for Plaintiff. That attorney was not counsel of record, was not designated lead trial counsel, was not disclosed in the confidential statement as the person who would appear, and had no knowledge of the case. The attorney told the Court he had been told "60 seconds ago" to appear. The Court noted that no explanation was given for lead counsel's absence or for the late statement. It also noted that it appeared Plaintiff had not given Defendant the written demand by September 8, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The order does not impose sanctions or decide that sanctionable misconduct occurred. It is an order to show cause. The Court recites four apparent failures by Plaintiff's counsel. They are lead trial counsel's failure to appear at the 10:00 a.m. pre-settlement discussion on October 14, 2026; the lack of any explanation for the untimely settlement statement due October 8; the failure to exchange the pre-settlement demand due September 8; and counsel's late appearance on October 14. The Court's account of the missed demand is phrased as something that appears to be so, and counsel's response may address it.
For authority, the Court cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 and Rules 16(f) and 37(b). It also cites its inherent power to manage its own affairs under Chambers v. NASCO, Inc. and Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper. It cites Ninth Circuit decisions, Ferdik v. Bonzelet and Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, that upheld terminating sanctions for disobeying court orders. Finally, it cites Eastern District Local Rule 110. The order does not select a particular sanction or analyze the factors that govern terminating sanctions.
Counsel for Plaintiff must show cause in writing by October 26, 2026. A hearing on the order is set for October 29, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. before the magistrate judge. The settlement conference set for the same date and time stays on calendar. Lead trial counsel must attend in person with their respective parties, and requests for remote appearance will not be considered. The order states that failure to comply with it will result in sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a show-cause directive, not a sanctions ruling, and no sanction has been selected or imposed.
- The Court listed four lapses: lead trial counsel's absence, an unexplained late settlement statement, an unexchanged pre-settlement demand, and a late appearance.
- The Court treated the appearance of an uninformed attorney who was not designated lead counsel as a failure of lead trial counsel to appear.
- Counsel's written response is due October 26, 2026. The show-cause hearing and the settlement conference are both set for October 29, 2026, and the conference requires in-person attendance.
- The Court had already warned on October 9, 2026 that late compliance with the settlement statement requirement could draw sanctions.
Why It Matters
The order shows a magistrate judge using a show-cause process before imposing sanctions. Counsel get a chance to explain missed deadlines and a defective appearance in settlement proceedings. It is an interlocutory case-management order in a pending case. It resolves no merits issue and is not a published decision with precedential weight.
What remains open is whether counsel can justify the conduct and, if not, what sanction the Court will impose, if any. The authorities cited point to a range of possible sanctions, but nothing in the order decides that terminating sanctions are warranted. The order also leaves open how the October 29 settlement conference will proceed.