Goolsby v. Carrasco et al

Filing 129

ORDER to Defendants to SHOW CAUSE Why the 128 Stipulation to Dismiss Should Not Be Stricken and/or Why Sanctions Should Not be Imposed, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/5/12. Fourteen Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
M. CARRASCO, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________ )

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01650 JLT (PC)
ORDER TO DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY THE STIPULATION TO DISMISS
SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN AND/OR WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED
(Doc. 128)

16
17

On November 7, 2011, Defendants alerted the Court that the matter had settled. (Doc. 117)

18

Defendants reported that a sum of money would be paid to Plaintiff and reported that it would be

19

paid within 150 days. Id. at 2. There was no other explanation as to when the sum would be paid.

20

On November 8, 2011, the Court issued an order after settlement conference, requiring the

21

matter be dismissed no later than December 23, 2011. (Doc. 118) However, on December 21, 2011,

22

Defendants sought an extension of time within which to finalize dismissal of the matter. (Doc. 123)

23

Defendants provided no explanation why the delay was needed but sought 111 additional days. Id.

24

Noting the failure to provide sufficient explanation for the delay, the Court granted the extension but

25

only to February 24, 2012. (Doc. 124) The order noted,

26
27

Defendant does not explain why payment cannot be made sooner. Indeed, he admits that
the settlement agreement, in essence, requires payment no later than 150 days after the
settlement documents were provided. It does not require Defendant to await the passage
of this time before payment may be made.

28
1

1

The Court is well aware of the dire financial status of the State of California. However,
nothing about this situation justifies it taking five months to make this payment.

2
3
4
5
6

Therefore, Defendant shall be granted an extension to February 24, 2012, in which to
file the signed stipulation for dismissal.
Failure to comply with this order may be grounds for the imposition of sanctions on
counsel or parties who contributed to violation of this order. See Local Rules 110, 160
and 272.
Id. at 1-2.

7

On February 21, 2012, Defendants filed a stipulation, signed by Plaintiff and counsel for

8

Defendants on November 3, 2011. (Doc. 125) As a result, the matter was dismissed on February 23,

9

2012. (Doc. 126)

10

After this, on two occasions, Plaintiff has alerted this Court that the filing of the stipulation for

11

dismissal was without his consent and that he had agreed to its filing only after he had received payment

12

of the settlement sum. (Docs. 127, 128)

13

Therefore, within 14 days of this order, Defendants are ORDERED to show cause why this the

14

stipulation for dismissal should not be set aside and why sanctions should not be imposed upon them

15

for failing to comply with the Court’s order which required–not just dismissal of the action–but

16

completion of the acts precedent to dismissing the action.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated: March 5, 2012
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2