Martinez v. Tri-State Enterprises LLC et al
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 54 Motion for Contempt. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 6/22/17. (ncb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
On his own behalf and on behalf of all others
TRI-STATE ENTERPRISES, LLC, ET AL.
Consistent with the court’s ruling from the bench during a hearing held June 21, 2017, on
Plaintiff’s Third Motion for Contempt , the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Having accepted defense counsel’s representation that his failure to update contact
information with the court along with his suffering from certain health problems caused the failures
raised in the motion, it is ordered that defense counsel must 1) immediately give all defendants
notice of the status of this case; 2) provide them with copies of all of the court’s orders; and 3)
promptly (in no event later than 7 days from today) certify in writing on the docket that such notice
and copies have been provided.
It is further ordered that the defendants shall have additional time until July 22, 2017, to
pay the sanctions ($4,954.81) ordered against them, jointly and severally, by Order  dated April
7, 2017. And, though the court found an additional sanction of $400.00 should be assessed against
defendants to cover Plaintiff’s counsel’s expenses incurred in connection with the instant motion;
the court, upon further reflection, finds said sanction should be paid by defense counsel.
Accordingly, defense counsel shall pay to Plaintiff, for the benefit of Plaintiff’s counsel,
$400.00 within 60 days of the date of this order.
Defendants and defense counsel are warned that failure to comply with this order will result
in the court’s consideration of further, appropriate sanctions, including, but not limited to, entry of a
SO ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 2017.
/s/ Jane M. Virden
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?