Ortiz et al v. Alvarez et al

Filing 48

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/3/15 ORDERING that within seven days of entry of this order, why they should not each be sanctioned in the amount of $250 for failure to comply with this court's order. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

S. ORTIZ, et al.,

12
13

No. 1:15-cv-00535-KJM-GSA
Plaintiffs,

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

14

GERARDO ALVAREZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

On May 7, 2015, the court issued its standing order in this case. ECF No. 14-1. In

19

that order, the parties were directed to meet and confer before the filing of any motion. Id. at 3.

20

Specifically, the court ordered, “Counsel should discuss the issues sufficiently so that if a motion

21

of any kind is filed, including for summary judgment, the briefing is directed only to those

22

substantive issues requiring resolution by the court. Counsel should resolve minor procedural or

23

other non-substantive matters during the meet and confer.” Id. The court ordered the parties to

24

include with the notice of any motion “a certification by counsel filing the motion that meet

25

and confer efforts have been exhausted, with a brief summary of meet and confer efforts.”

26

Id. (emphasis in original).

27
28
1

1

On October 12, 16, and 20, 2015, the defendants filed several motions to dismiss

2

and to strike. See ECF Nos. 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 45, 46. The notices of these motions included no

3

certifications of the parties’ efforts to meet and confer.

4

The defendants are each ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, within seven days of

5

entry of this order, why they should not each be sanctioned in the amount of $250 for failure to

6

comply with this court’s order. The possibility of sanctions will be abated if, prior to the date by

7

which reply briefs are due, defense counsel meet and confer with plaintiffs’ counsel and notify

8

the count, concurrently with the filing of any reply, whether any issues addressed by defendants’

9

motions have been narrowed.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 3, 2016.

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2