Mustafaa v. Cherne Contracting Corporation
- Kang
- 3:24-cv-07748
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Mustafaa v. Cherne Contracting Corporation, Judge Kang ordered defendant’s attorneys to explain why an attorney had not filed an appearance application or face possible sanctions.
Cherne Contracting Corporation’s attorneys, particularly Arthur J. Rooney, because the order required an explanation or a filing and warned of possible sanctions.
What happened
In Mustafaa v. Cherne Contracting Corporation, the defendant’s attorney, Arthur J. Rooney, had said that his application to appear in the case was forthcoming. The court had previously directed him to file it by March 17, 2025, or remove his name from later filings.
As of May 7, 2025, Rooney had not filed the application, and he remained listed on a later joint filing. The court ordered the defendant’s attorneys to submit a one-page explanation by May 14, 2025, or file Rooney’s application instead.
Judge Peter H. Kang warned that failing to respond could lead to sanctions. The order itself did not impose sanctions.
The detailed version
- Mustafaa v. Cherne Contracting Corporation · No. 3:24-cv-07748
- Kang
- May 7, 2025
Background
Cherne Contracting Corporation removed the case to federal court on November 6, 2024. The parties later submitted stipulations concerning a protective order and discovery of electronically stored information. Attorney Arthur J. Rooney, who represented Cherne, stated in those filings that his application to appear in the case was “forthcoming.”
On March 12, 2025, the court’s clerk directed Rooney to file the application by March 17, 2025, or remove his name from future filings. The court cited the district’s local rule governing such applications. On May 6, 2025, the parties submitted a stipulation extending the mediation deadline, and Rooney remained listed on that filing while again indicating that his application was forthcoming.
Order to Show Cause
The court found that, as of May 7, 2025, Cherne had not complied with the clerk’s notice or the applicable local rules. It ordered Cherne’s attorneys to file a one-page explanation showing why Rooney had not complied with the court’s directive and why sanctions should not be imposed. An order to show cause requires a party to explain why the court should not take a specified action.
The court provided an alternative: filing Rooney’s application would automatically discharge the order to show cause. Any response was due by May 14, 2025. The court warned that failure to respond on time could result in sanctions, but it did not impose sanctions in this order.
Disposition
Judge Peter H. Kang issued an order to show cause concerning the missing application and set a response deadline. The opinion does not state whether Rooney later filed the application or whether sanctions were ultimately imposed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.