From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Herr v. Bank of Stockton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 17, 2012
2:11-cv-00 677-GEB-EFB (E.D. Cal. Jul. 17, 2012)

Opinion

2:11-cv-00 677-GEB-EFB

07-17-2012

MICHAEL HERR, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF STOCKTON, Defendant*.


.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND

CONTINUING FINAL PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE

The June 17, 2012 Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order scheduled a final pretrial conference in this case for July 23, 2012. The Status Order required the parties to file a joint final pretrial statement "not later than seven (7) days prior to the final pretrial conference." (ECF No. 17.) No final pretrial statement was filed as required.

Further, despite Plaintiff's representations in the Joint Status Report filed on June 13, 2011, that "Plaintiff has reached a settlement with Defendant[] Bank of Stockton, . . . [c]losing documents are currently being executed[,] . . . and [a] Joint Stipulation for Dismissal . . . will be filed[,]" no dispositional document was ever filed as to this defendant. A review of the docket also reveals that Defendant Bank of Stockton has never appeared in this action. See Joint Status Report 5:12-17.

Therefore, Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause ("OSC") in a writing to be filed no later than July 23, 2012, why:

1) sanctions should not be imposed against him and/or his counsel under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to file a timely final pretrial statement; and

2) this action should not be dismissed for failure of prosecution.

The written response shall also state whether Plaintiff or his counsel is at fault for the failure to file a timely final pretrial statement, and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC. If a hearing is requested, it will be held on August 6, 2012, at 1:30 p.m., just prior to the final pretrial conference, which is rescheduled to that date and time. A final pretrial statement shall be filed no later than seven (7) days prior to the final pretrial conference.

Plaintiff is notified that this action may be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) if Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

Senior United States District Judge


Summaries of

Herr v. Bank of Stockton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 17, 2012
2:11-cv-00 677-GEB-EFB (E.D. Cal. Jul. 17, 2012)
Case details for

Herr v. Bank of Stockton

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL HERR, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF STOCKTON, Defendant*.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 17, 2012

Citations

2:11-cv-00 677-GEB-EFB (E.D. Cal. Jul. 17, 2012)