The Sherwin-Williams Company v. Courtesy Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc., et al.

Filing 73


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, 10 Plaintiff, v. 11 12 COURTESY OLDSMOBILECADILLAC, INC.., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01137-MJS ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS (ECF NO. 72) 13 Defendants. 14 FOURTEEN (14) DAY RESPONSE DEADLINE 15 16 17 I. Procedural History 18 On March 31, 2017, the parties requested a stay of the deadline to file dispositive 19 motions on the ground that they had reached a tentative settlement agreement. (ECF 20 No. 66.) On April 3, 2017, the Court extended the dispositive motion fourteen days. (ECF 21 No. 67.) 22 The fourteen day deadline passed with no submissions by the parties. On April 23 20, 2017, the Court ordered the parties to file a joint status report regarding the progress 24 of settlement. (ECF No. 68.) The parties filed a status report indicating that they 25 continued to work on a final settlement agreement. They did not request a further 26 extension of any court deadlines. (ECF No. 69.) 27 On May 1, 2017, the Court filed a minute order noting that the parties had not filed 28 1 a joint pretrial statement as previously ordered. The parties were ordered to file a joint 2 pretrial statement by May 2, 2017. (ECF No. 70.) 3 On May 2, 2017, the parties filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending 4 execution of a final settlement agreement. (ECF No. 71.) They stated their intent to file a 5 stipulation to dismiss the action with prejudice within sixty days. 6 The Court did not grant the motion to stay but vacated all pending dates and 7 matters. The parties were ordered to file dispositional documents within sixty days. (ECF 8 No. 72.) 9 The sixty day deadline has now passed. The parties did not file dispositional 10 documents or seek an extension of time to do so. 11 II. Discussion 12 Local Rule 110 provides, “Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 13 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any 14 and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” 15 Here, the parties have, since April 17, 2017, failed to prosecute this action with 16 diligence. They have failed to comply with multiple court deadlines, necessitating 17 multiple court orders to move the action forward. They have failed to file dispositional 18 documents despite representations that they would do so. It is unclear whether a final 19 settlement has been reached. The parties’ failure to take required action in this matter 20 wastes judicial resources. The Court will no longer hold this matter in abeyance if a final 21 settlement has not been reached and the matter cannot now be closed. 22 III. 23 Order Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. Within fourteen days, the parties are ordered to show cause why monetary 25 or terminating sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply with 26 the orders of this Court; 27 2. Within fourteen days the parties are ordered to file dispositional 28 2 documents in compliance with the Court’s May 2, 2017 minute order; 1 2 3. If no dispositional documents are filed within the time required, the 3 dispositive motion deadline and all pretrial deadlines and trial may 4 immediately be reset without further consultation with the parties; 5 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions, including 6 monetary or terminating sanctions. 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 7, 2017 /s/ 10 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?