
    In re CON-WAY FREIGHT Inc. Con-way Freight Inc., Petitioner, v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco, Respondent, Jorge R. Quezada, Real Party in Interest.
    No. 13-71160.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted to Motions Panel June 17, 2013.
    
    Filed June 27, 2013.
    Barrett Green, Littler Mendelson P.C., Los Angeles, CA; Richard H. Rahm and Angela J. Rafoth, Littler Mendelson P.C., San Francisco, CA, for the Petitioner.
    Lawrence Cagney, Westrup Klick, LLP, Long Beach, CA; Michael Lee Carver, Law Offices of Michael L. Carver, Chico, CA; Jonathan Che Gettleman, Law Office of Jonathan Che Gettleman, Santa Cruz, CA, for the Real Party in Interest.
    Richard Pianka, ATA Litigation Center, Arlington, VA, for the Amici Curiae.
    Before: MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, RONALD M. GOULD, and PAUL J. WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   ORDER

The court has considered the “amicus curiae” letter submitted in support of this petition for writ of mandamus by Downtown LA Motors LP.

The motion of American Trucking Associations, Inc. and California Trucking Association for leave to file a brief amici curiae is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status and shall file the amicus brief submitted on April 9, 2013.

Petitioner’s request for judicial notice is granted.

Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir.1977). Indeed, we find the petition to be frivolous and wholly without merit. Accordingly, the petition is denied. •

Within 21 days after the date of this order, counsel Barrett Green, Richard H. Rahm, and Angela J. Rafoth of Littler Mendelson P.C. shall show cause in writing why monetary sanctions should not be imposed against counsel individually for filing a frivolous petition for writ of mandamus. See 9th Cir. R. 46-2(d), (I); 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 12.9(a); see also 9th Cir. R. 46-2 advisory committee’s note (8) (court may impose monetary sanctions under inherent powers of the court); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45-51, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991).

Counsel’s failure to file a timely response will result in the imposition of sanctions without further notice.

Counsel’s response to the order to show cause is referred to the Appellate Commissioner, who shall conduct whatever proceedings he deems appropriate and shall have authority to enter an order, including an order imposing monetary sanctions.

DENIED.  