Dai v. Liu
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:24-cv-00356
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Dai v. Liu, Judge DeMarchi sanctioned each law firm representing the parties $500 and required trial counsel to complete pretrial-practice courses after missed deadlines.
The law firms currently representing the parties must pay the $500 sanctions, and each attorney who will try the case must complete the required continuing-education courses and certify completion.
What happened
In Dai v. Liu, the parties did not follow the court’s pretrial orders or deadlines, preventing the scheduled final pretrial conference from going forward. The court found that neither side gave a convincing explanation for the failures.
The court ordered each law firm representing the parties to pay $500 to the Clerk of Court by July 24, 2025. The firms may not charge that amount to their clients. Each attorney who will try the case must also complete an approved course on pretrial and trial practice and file a sworn certification with proof of completion.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi issued the sanctions order on July 16, 2025. The courses must be completed by January 12, 2026, and the certifications must be filed within 10 court days after completion.
The detailed version
- Dai v. Liu · No. 5:24-cv-00356
- Virginia Demarchi
- July 16, 2025
Background
The court held a hearing on whether the parties should be sanctioned for failing to comply with the court’s Standing Order regarding pretrial preparation and a May 12, 2025 order. Those failures prevented the court from holding the final pretrial conference scheduled for July 16, 2025.
Plaintiffs’ counsel, Xiaoyong Lai, said he had experienced recurring allergies beginning in April 2024. The court found that this did not explain why he had not timely requested an extension or sought a stipulation for additional time. Defendants’ counsel, Zheng Liu, did not provide a reasonable explanation either. The court rejected defendants’ references to scheduling problems after the trial was continued because the May 12 order stated that the final pretrial conference remained scheduled and that the parties still had to meet the pretrial deadlines. The court also rejected the position that defendants’ obligations depended on plaintiffs’ compliance.
The court noted that the parties or their counsel had previously been admonished to follow applicable standing orders and local rules.
Authority and Ruling
The court relied on its inherent authority to manage its docket and impose sanctions, as well as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. That rule allows sanctions when a party or attorney fails to attend or participate properly in a pretrial conference or fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order. The court found that the parties’ failures warranted sanctions.
The court ordered the following:
- Each law firm currently representing the parties must pay $500 to the Clerk of Court by July 24,
- The firms may not bill their clients for the sanctions or require their clients to pay them.
- Each attorney who will try the case must complete a bar-approved course or courses on pretrial and trial practice before federal courts. The deadline is January 12,
- Within 10 court days after completing the courses, counsel must file a sworn certification and attach any completion certificate from the course provider.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi entered the order on July 16, 2025.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.