Fonseca et al v. City of Fresno

Filing 83

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not be Imposed For Failure to Dismiss Action 82 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/16/2012. (This Court ORDERS plaintiffs, no later than 4/5/2012, to file papers to show cause why sanctions, including dismissal of this action with or without prejudice and monetary sanctions against counsel and/or plaintiffs, should not be imposed for failure to comply with the 2/15/2012 order.) (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

GUADALUPE FONESCA, et al.,

10
11
12

CASE NO. CV F 10-0147 LJO DLB

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS
SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO
DISMISS ACTION
(Doc. 82.)

vs.
CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,

13

Defendants.
/

14
15

This Court’s February 15, 2012 order requires the parties, no later than March 19, 2012, to file

16

appropriate papers to dismiss or conclude this action, or to show good cause why the action has not been

17

dismissed. Defense counsel filed March 15, 2012 papers to suggest that plaintiffs failed to provide

18

necessary releases to conclude settlement and to request an extension to dismiss this action. This

19

Court’s Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with an order of this Court “may be grounds for

20

imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent

21

power of the Court.”

22

Accordingly, this Court ORDERS plaintiffs, no later than April 5, 2012, to file papers to show

23

cause why sanctions, including dismissal of this action with or without prejudice and monetary sanctions

24

against counsel and/or plaintiffs, should not be imposed for failure to comply with the February 15, 2012

25

order. This order to show cause will be discharged if, no later than April 5, 2012, papers are filed to

26

dismiss this action in its entirety.

27

Moreover, if the parties fail to complete settlement, this Court will explore resetting trial as soon

28

as possible and if necessary, reassigning this action to another district judge, including one from the
1

1

Sacramento division or another district, to expedite trial.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
66h44d

March 16, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2