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)

Download PDF
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?