B.L. Rosenfeld et al v. Jess Talamantes et al

Filing 131

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)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DR. DR. B.L. ROSENFELD, et al., CV 22-497 DSF (Ex) Plaintiffs, Order on Plaintiffs’ Objections to v. Court Order; Order to Show Cause re Sanctions BURBANK MAYOR JESS TALAMATES, et al., Defendants. 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.” 1 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. 2 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 3 ___________________________ Dale S. Fischer United States District Judge Because docket 115 was stricken, there is no stipulation filed on the docket. 2

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?