Markham v. Tehachapi Unified School District
Filing
25
ORDER to the PARTIES to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Their Failure to Comply with the Court's Order to File Dismissal Documents, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/13/2019. Show Cause Response due within 14 days. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
K.M.,
Case No.: 1:17-cv-01431 LJO JLT
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,
ORDER TO THE PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED
FOR THEIR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S ORDER TO FILE DISMISSAL
DOCUMENTS
15
Defendants.
16
_____________________________________
17
BRENDA MARKHAM,
18
Plaintiff,
19
Case No.: 1:15-cv-01835 LJO JLT
v.
20
21
22
TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
23
BRENDA MARKHAM,
24
Plaintiff,
25
Case No.: 1:18-cv-00303 LJO JLT
v.
26
27
28
TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.
TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT
1
Plaintiff,
2
v.
3
Case No.: 1:16-cv-01942 LJO JLT
K.M.,
Defendant.
4
5
6
7
The Court adopted the findings and recommendation to grant the petition for the minor’s
8
compromise. (Doc. 481) In doing so, the Court ordered the parties “file with the Court a stipulation for
9
dismissal of the action with prejudice, and lodge a separate order, pursuant to the schedule set forth in
10
the F&Rs.” Id. at 3. The findings and recommendation required this to occur within 45 days after the
11
Court adopted them. (Doc. 47 at 92) Despite the expiration of the 45-day period, the parties have
12
failed to comply. Therefore, the Court ORDERS:
1.
13
Within 14 days, the parties SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions should not
14
be imposed for their failure to comply with the Court’s order to file the stipulated dismissal and to
15
lodge a separate order. Alternatively, within 14 days, they may file/lodge the overdue documents.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
Dated:
June 13, 2019
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
In case number 1:15-cv-01835 LJO JLT, the docket number is 71. In case number 1:18-cv-00303 LJO JLT it is Doc. 24
and in case number 1:16-cv-01942 LJO JLT it is 54.
2
In case number 1:15-cv-01835 LJO JLT, the docket number is 69. In case number 1:18-cv-00303 LJO JLT it is Doc. 22
and in case number 1:16-cv-01942 LJO JLT it is 53.
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?