Sandra Garybo et al v. Leonardo Bros et al

Filing 64

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW A COURT ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/9/2019. (Fourteen-Day Deadline ) (Thorp, J)

Case 1:15-cv-01487-DAD-JLT Document 64 Filed 01/09/19 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SANDRA GARYBO, et al.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
LEONARDO BROS, et al.,

No. 1:15-cv-01487-DAD-JLT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED
FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW A COURT
ORDER

Defendants.
Fourteen-Day Deadline

16
17
18

On October 16, 2018, the court held a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

19

The motion was taken under submission and, by way of a minute order, the court directed

20

plaintiffs to submit a supplemental declaration as discussed at the hearing. (Doc. No. 63.)

21

Although almost three months have passed since that hearing, no such declaration has been

22

provided to the court.

23

On December 19, 2018, through informal email correspondence, the court directed

24

plaintiffs’ counsel to file their supplemental declaration no later than Tuesday, January 8, 2019.

25

However, plaintiffs have still not filed their supplemental declaration, nor have they responded to

26

the court’s correspondence.

27
28

Accordingly, plaintiffs are hereby ordered to show cause in writing within fourteen (14)
days from the date of service of this order why sanctions should not be imposed due to their
1

Case 1:15-cv-01487-DAD-JLT Document 64 Filed 01/09/19 Page 2 of 2
1

failure to follow the court’s prior order of December 19, 2018. Plaintiffs may discharge this order

2

to show cause by filing a supplemental declaration within this fourteen-day period in which it

3

provides more precise date parameters for the 2015 harvest season to define the class period and

4

addresses why Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch, APLC is fit to be appointed class counsel.

5

Plaintiffs are cautioned that failure to appropriately respond to this order may result in the

6

imposition of sanctions, including possible dismissal of this action. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

7

F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

8

(9th Cir. 1986).

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated:

January 9, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2