McPhail v. FCA US, LLC.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed the parties' responses to an order to show cause regarding venue and standing under the Song-Beverly Act, noting that Plaintiffs failed to appear through counsel of record and failed to provide evidence supporting venue or standing. The court ordered that Plaintiffs' counsel of record must appear in person at all future proceedings and indicated a separate order would be issued to reset case management dates.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiffs' counsel of record must appear in person at all future proceedings.“Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ counsel of record must appear in person at all future proceedings in this case.” | agree with court The court has inherent authority to manage its docket and require the appearance of counsel of record, particularly after counsel of record failed to appear at a scheduled hearing and an unlisted attorney appeared instead. This is a standard case management measure. |
The court will issue a separate order resetting the Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference.“The Court will issue a separate order resetting the Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference.” | agree with court Resetting scheduling dates is within the court's discretion to manage the case, especially given the procedural irregularities at the hearing. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural case management order addressing the failure of counsel of record to appear and the lack of evidence presented regarding venue and standing. It correctly identifies the procedural default and imposes a reasonable sanction (mandatory in-person appearance) while deferring the substantive dismissal or transfer decision to a future proceeding or separate order. It does not make a final ruling on the merits of the venue or standing issues, only noting the plaintiffs' failure to support them at the hearing.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PRISCILLA MCPHAIL and JAMES Case No.: 24-cv-1879-WQH-DDL MCPHAIL, 12 ORDER RE JANUARY 21, 2025 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. HEARING 14
FCA US, LLC, 15
16 Defendant.
18 On January 6, 2025, the Court ordered the parties to show cause (1) why this case 19 should not be dismissed for improper venue or transferred to another district in the interest 20 of justice and (2) whether Plaintiffs have standing to seek relief under the Song-Beverly 21 Act and Cummins, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 36 Cal. 4th 478, 483 (2005) (“We conclude that the 22 Act does not apply unless the vehicle was purchased in California.”). Dkt. No. 7. The 23 Court set the matter for a hearing on January 21, 2025. 24 Plaintiffs and Defendant submitted written responses to the Order to Show Cause. 25 Defense counsel appeared at the January 21 hearing; however, Plaintiffs’ counsel of record 26 did not. Rather, attorney Ryan Baggs appeared for Plaintiffs. Baggs represented that he 27 had filed a notice of appearance the day before, but the docket does not reflect any such 28 notice. At the January 21 hearing, Baggs did not provide any information that would 1 ||support a finding that venue is appropriate in the Southern District of California or that 2 || Plaintiffs have standing to pursue their Song-Beverly Act claims, because they did not 3 || purchase the subject vehicle in California. 4 That Plaintiffs’ counsel of record elected not to appear at the January 21 hearing 5 ||raises substantial concerns separate from Plaintiffs’ inability to explain why venue is 6 ||appropriate in this District or why they have standing under the Song-Beverly Act. 7 || Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ counsel of record must appear in person at all future 8 || proceedings in this case. The Court will issue a separate order resetting the Early Neutral 9 || Evaluation and Case Management Conference. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: January 30, 2025 ae 2 Tad Libor 13 Hon.DavidD.Leshner SOS 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Cummins, Inc. v. Superior Court S117726 · 2005-07-18