Resol Group LLC v. Scarlett et al
Filing
20
ORDER DISSOLVING 6 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/16/2015. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
RESOL GROUP LLC,
8
Case No. 15-cv-05212-BLF
Plaintiff,
9
v.
ORDER DISSOLVING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE
10
SIDNEY T. SCARLETT, et al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants.
12
13
On November 17, 2015, the Court ordered Defendant Sidney Scarlett to show cause why
14
15
sanctions should not be imposed for removing state court action case number 114-CV-267656 for
16
the fourth time. ECF 6. On December 15, 2015, Defendant Scarlett filed a motion seeking an
17
extension of time to respond to the order to show cause. ECF 19. In his motion, Defendant
18
Scarlett indicated that he had not been served with this Court’s order in case number 15-cv-03245
19
which remanded his third removal attempt of the state court action. Id. at 2. That order put
20
Defendant Scarlett on notice that any further attempts to remove the state court action may result
21
in sanctions, including the institution of a pre-filing order. See Aug 31 Order at 3, Resol Grp. LLC
22
v. Scarlett, No. 15-CV-03245-BLF, ECF 28 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015).
After reviewing the Court’s files, it appears that the Aug 31 Order was mailed to
23
24
Defendant Scarlett but returned as undeliverable.1 Since the Court does not have a record of
25
Defendant Scarlett having received the Aug 31 Order, the Court DISSOLVES the order to show
26
1
27
28
The Court notes that the July 20, 2015 order from case number 15-cv-03245 was also returned as
undeliverable but Defendant Scarlett appears to have received it based on his subsequent filings
responding to that order and his attachment of that order to his Notice of Order of Complete Case
Record at ECF 9.
1
cause and Defendant Scarlett is not required to respond in writing to the order to show cause or
2
appear at a hearing.2 Defendant Scarlett is now on notice that that any further attempts to remove
3
Case No. 114-CV-267656 may result in sanctions, including the institution of a pre-filing order.
4
Bridgewater v. Hayes Valley Ltd. Partnership, No. 10-03022 CW, 2011 WL 635268 at *4 (N.D.
5
Cal., Feb. 11, 2011); see generally Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir.
6
2007).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated: December 16, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
28
Defendant’s motion to enlarge time to respond to the order to show cause is DENIED AS
MOOT.
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?