Andrew Lockhart et al v. Jay R. Delaney et al

Filing 24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 6/8/2017 10:00 AM. Show Cause Response due by 5/25/2017. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 5/15/2017. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANDREW LOCKHART, ET AL., Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 v. Case No. 16-cv-01583-MEJ ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re: Dkt. No. 23 JAY R DELANEY, et al., Defendants. 12 13 On September 7, 2016, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice in light of a 14 settlement the parties reached through mediation. Dismissal Order, Dkt. No. 19; see Dkt. No. 18. 15 The Court stated that 16 17 18 19 if any party hereto shall certify to this Court, within ninety (90) days, with proof of service thereof, that the agreed consideration for said settlement has not been delivered over, the foregoing order shall stand vacated and this cause shall forthwith be restored to the calendar to be set for trial. If no certification is filed after passage of ninety (90) days, the dismissal shall be with prejudice. 20 Id. (italics added; bold in original). The deadline to certify that a party was in violation of the 21 settlement was December 6, 2016; no party filed a certification. See Docket. 22 On April 10, 2017, Plaintiffs Andrew Lockhart and Lesley Lockhart (collectively, 23 “Plaintiffs”) filed a Motion to Reopen this action to enter judgment against Defendants based on 24 Defendants’ alleged failure to fulfill their part of the settlement. Mot., Dkt. No. 23. Plaintiffs do 25 not acknowledge the Court’s Dismissal Order, nor do they address the impact it has on their 26 Motion. See Mot. 27 28 1 Accordingly, the Court VACATES the May 18, 2017 hearing1 on the Motion and 2 ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause why it may enter judgment against Defendants given that this 3 case was dismissed with prejudice as of December 6, 2016. Plaintiffs shall file a declaration by 4 May 25, 2017. If a responsive declaration is filed, the Court shall either issue an order based on 5 the declaration or conduct a hearing on June 8, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 6 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. Notice is hereby provided that failure to file 7 a written response will be deemed an admission that Plaintiffs do not intend to proceed, and the 8 Court will deny their Motion with prejudice. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Dated: May 15, 2017 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The cover page of the Motion indicates a hearing is scheduled for May 18, 2017 (see Mot. at 1); however, Plaintiffs failed to calendar the Motion for a hearing when they filed it using the Court’s electronic filing system. 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?