Hopson v. American Tire Depot, Inc. et al
ORDER Discharging Order to Show Cause and Requiring Plaintiff to File Dispositional Documents Within Sixty Days 10 , 11 , 12 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/21/2017. (Hellings, J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8 WILLIAM HOPSON,
Case No.: 1:17-cv-880-LJO-SAB
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS WITHIN
(ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12)
13 AMERICAN TIRE DEPOT, INC., et al.,
On November 20, 2017, an order was filed requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this action
should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders. On November 20, 2017,
Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause and a notice of settlement.
Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause asks the Court not to dismiss this action
because the case has settled. Plaintiff apologizes for not filing a notice of settlement earlier.
However, Plaintiff has provided no reason for the failure to comply with the orders issued in this
action. The Court notes that counsel for Plaintiff repeated fails to show cause by providing a reason
for his failure to comply with orders to cause issued in actions. For example, in Hopson v. Ron
Simi, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00879-DAD-SAB, an order to show cause issued on the same date as the
order issued in the instant case. In that action, Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal, but has not
responded to the order to show cause.
Similarly, in both this action and Hopson v. Ron Simi, Inc., the Court has previously noted
that Plaintiff failed to respond to a prior order to show cause. The Court discharged the orders in
both causes but “counsel for Plaintiff [was] advised that orders are not mere suggestions to which the
party may choose to respond. When the Court issues an order requiring an act by a date certain, the
party is required to act. Counsel Daniel Joseph Malakauskas is hereby provided with notice that
should there be future failures to respond to orders of this Court, monetary sanctions will issue
without further notice.” (ECF No. 9 at 1:25-2:2.) Counsel is informed that when the Court issues an
order to show cause, the party is required to show cause why sanctions should not issue.
In this instance, the Court will discharge the order to show cause, but any further failures to
respond to Court orders or failure to show cause in response to an order requiring the party to show
cause why sanctions should not issue will result in the issuance of sanctions.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
The order to show cause, filed November 16, 2017, is DISCHARGED;
All pending dates in this matter are VACATED;
Plaintiff shall file dispositive documents on or before January 22, 2018;
Counsel Daniel Joseph Malakauskas is advised that future failures to comply
with orders of this Court will result in the issuance of monetary sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 21, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?