Dahlin et al v. Frieborn et al

Filing 194

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Senior District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 05/13/24 DIRECTING Plaintiffs to show cause in writing, within 10 days following the date that this order is electronically filed, why this case should not be dismissed f or failure to prosecute and/or to follow the applicable rules and orders of this Court. Sherry Couzens, Michael Crosson, Friends of Auburn/Tahoe Vista Placer County Animal Shelter, Friends of Auburn/Tahoe Vista Placer County Animal Shelter, Inc., Friends of Placer County Animal Shelter, Edward J. Fritz, Humane Society of the Sierra Foothills, Marilyn Jasper, Shana Laursen, Katie Newman, Cassie Reeves, Auburn Police Department and City of Auburn terminated.(Licea Chavez, V)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 JAMES DAHLIN and KIMBERLY DAHLIN, Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 16 17 18 No. 2:17-cv-02585-MCE-AC ORDER v. ROSEMARY FRIEBORN, CURT RANSOM, DEBBIE NELSON, PHILLIP ISETTA, ANGELA MCCULLOUGH, TUCKER HUEY, and THOMAS SHERIFF, Defendants. 19 20 The Court has considered the three separate sets of objections (ECF Nos. 187- 21 89) that Defendants filed to its Supplemental Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 186). 22 Each objection contends that the discovery deadline is insufficient to allow for proper fact 23 discovery due to repeated lengthy delays caused by the egregious neglect of this case 24 and highly inappropriate conduct during deposition proceedings by one of Plaintiffs’ 25 counsels, Mr. Stratton Barbee, the latter of which the Court is aware is the subject of a 26 Motion to Compel, Motion for Protective Order, and Motion for Sanctions noticed before 27 Magistrate Judge Allison Claire (ECF No. 192). 28 Independently, the Court has reviewed filings in which Mr. Barbee indicates he is 1 1 missing discovery and had tried at times to obtain information from Plaintiffs’ “former 2 counsel Dennise Henderson, to no avail.” ECF No. 193-1, at 11. Not only did Mr. 3 Barbee never raise any issues regarding Ms. Henderson’s purported failure to provide 4 Plaintiffs’ case files with the Court, but there is no record that Ms. Henderson ever 5 withdrew as counsel for Plaintiffs. 6 Given the Court’s review of the record in its entirety and the fact that all remaining 7 Defendants unanimously describe the same unprofessional conduct and dilatory tactics, 8 not later than ten (10) days following the date that this Order is electronically filed, 9 Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause (“OSC”) in writing why this case should not be 10 dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or to follow the applicable rules and orders of this 11 Court. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(b). Plaintiffs shall include in their response to the OSC 12 an explanation as to the status of counsel as well. If no response is timely filed, this 13 action will be dismissed with terminating (and/or monetary sanctions) with prejudice 14 upon no further notice to the parties. 15 16 17 18 Finally, the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all Defendants other than those included in the above caption. See ECF Nos. 131, 149. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 13, 2024 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?