Seifert v. Werner

Filing 155

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/11/11 ORDERING that Plaintiff's MOTION for Sanctions and Defendant's CROSS-MOTION For Sanctions 148 and 151 are DENIED. The court notes the parties' filings but declines to consider them because doing so would contravene the stay in effect. The parties are once again directed to return to arbitration. Plaintiff is cautioned that any further motions filed here prior to the resolution of arbitration may result in the sua sponte di smissal of the action on the court's own motion for plaintiff's failure to prosecute. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991) (it is the responsibility of the moving party to move towards [ ] disposition at a reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics). (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

KATHLEEN SEIFERT,

11

Plaintiff,
vs.

12
13

NO. CIV. S-08-0998 KJM-CKD

RICHARD WERNER,
Defendant.

14

ORDER
/

15
16

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and defendant’s

17

cross motion for sanctions. ECF No. 148; ECF No. 151. For the reasons set forth below, both

18

motions are DENIED.

19

This diversity case has been stayed since January 21, 2009. ECF No. 80. Since

20

September 21, 2009, the case has been before an arbitrator chosen by the parties. ECF No. 98. Prior

21

to the present motion for default as a sanction, plaintiff moved on four previous occasions to return

22

the matter from arbitration to the district court. ECF No. 102; ECF No. 120; ECF No. 130; ECF No.

23

142. The court has denied each request and in each instance returned the matter to arbitration. ECF

24

No. 112; ECF No. 128; ECF No. 141; ECF No. 149.

25

/////

26

/////
1

1

The court notes the parties’ filings but declines to consider them because doing so

2

would contravene the stay in effect. The parties are once again directed to return to arbitration.

3

Plaintiff is cautioned that any further motions filed here prior to the resolution of arbitration may

4

result in the sua sponte dismissal of the action on the court’s own motion for plaintiff’s failure to

5

prosecute. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991) (“it is the

6

responsibility of the moving party to move towards [ ] disposition at a reasonable pace, and to

7

refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics”).

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 11, 2011.

10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2