B.L. Rosenfeld et al v. Jess Talamantes et al
Order by Judge Dale S. Fischer on Plaintiffs' Objections to Court Order 130 ; Order to Show Cause re Sanctions. Defense counsel is ordered to show cause in writing no later than 1/30/2023. See Order for specifics. (jp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DR. DR. B.L. ROSENFELD, et al., CV 22-497 DSF (Ex)
Order on Plaintiffs’ Objections to
Court Order; Order to Show
Cause re Sanctions
BURBANK MAYOR JESS
TALAMATES, et al.,
On December 1, 2022, counsel for Plaintiffs filed a document titled
“Stipulation to Dismiss Portions of the Fourth Amended Complaint.” 1
(Dkt. 115.) That document was stricken for failure to comply with the
Court’s standing order and Local Rule 5-4.4.2, which require that
proposed orders be submitted to chambers email. (Dkt. 123.)
On January 6, 2023, after communications occurred with the Court’s
courtroom deputy clerk, a proposed order was submitted to the
chambers email by Collinson, Daehnke, Inlow & Greco, counsel for
Defendants. The Court approved that proposed order (correcting its
title in the signature block). 2 The proposed order attached to docket
115 is different from the proposed order submitted to the chambers
The document was incorrectly docketed as “STIPULATION to Dismiss
DEFENDANTS Tanya Cooper filed by plaintiff B. L. Rosenfeld.”
Plaintiffs’ counsel speculated in his Objection that the Court had been
“forced to draft its own, incorrect order, which is mistaken.” Apparently,
defense counsel did not provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with a copy of the proposed
order submitted to chambers email.
email in that the latter adds the phrase “with prejudice under FRCP
41(a)(1)(A)(ii)” to the introductory paragraph. Both versions of the
proposed orders provided to the Court bear the watermark of Collinson,
Daehnke, Inlow & Greco. The stipulation does not indicate that the
parties or claims are to be dismissed with prejudice. 3
Defense counsel is ordered to show cause in writing no later than
January 30, 2023 why the Court’s order at docket 126 should not be
vacated and why defense counsel should not be sanctioned for the
submission of a revised proposed order, apparently without notice to or
consent of Plaintiffs’ counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: January 18, 2023
Dale S. Fischer
United States District Judge
Because docket 115 was stricken, there is no stipulation filed on the docket.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?