Hopson v. American Tire Depot, Inc. et al

Filing 13

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)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

FRESNO DIVISION

6
7
8 WILLIAM HOPSON,
9
PLAINTIFF,

10
11
12

v.

Case No.: 1:17-cv-880-LJO-SAB
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS WITHIN
SIXTY DAYS
(ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12)

13 AMERICAN TIRE DEPOT, INC., et al.,
14

DEFENDANTS.

15
16

On November 20, 2017, an order was filed requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this action

17

should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders. On November 20, 2017,

18

Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause and a notice of settlement.

19

Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause asks the Court not to dismiss this action

20
21

because the case has settled. Plaintiff apologizes for not filing a notice of settlement earlier.

22

However, Plaintiff has provided no reason for the failure to comply with the orders issued in this

23

action. The Court notes that counsel for Plaintiff repeated fails to show cause by providing a reason

24

for his failure to comply with orders to cause issued in actions. For example, in Hopson v. Ron

25
26

Simi, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00879-DAD-SAB, an order to show cause issued on the same date as the

27

order issued in the instant case. In that action, Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal, but has not

28

responded to the order to show cause.

1

Similarly, in both this action and Hopson v. Ron Simi, Inc., the Court has previously noted

1
2

that Plaintiff failed to respond to a prior order to show cause. The Court discharged the orders in

3

both causes but “counsel for Plaintiff [was] advised that orders are not mere suggestions to which the

4

party may choose to respond. When the Court issues an order requiring an act by a date certain, the

5
6

party is required to act. Counsel Daniel Joseph Malakauskas is hereby provided with notice that

7

should there be future failures to respond to orders of this Court, monetary sanctions will issue

8

without further notice.” (ECF No. 9 at 1:25-2:2.) Counsel is informed that when the Court issues an

9

order to show cause, the party is required to show cause why sanctions should not issue.

10

In this instance, the Court will discharge the order to show cause, but any further failures to

11
12
13

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.

14

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

The order to show cause, filed November 16, 2017, is DISCHARGED;

2.

All pending dates in this matter are VACATED;

3.

Plaintiff shall file dispositive documents on or before January 22, 2018;

4.

Counsel Daniel Joseph Malakauskas is advised that future failures to comply

16
17
18
19
20

with orders of this Court will result in the issuance of monetary sanctions.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated:

24

November 21, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28

2