Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carreira v. Astrue

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 12, 2010

CHERYL CARREIRA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.
REBECCA KREISHER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.
TAMMYE BURNHAM, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The above-captioned actions are all proceeding before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. E.D. Cal. L.R. 305; Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. Each plaintiff is represented by attorney Bess M. Brewer. The scheduling order in each of the cases provides that "[f]ailure to comply with any portion of this schedule may result in sanctions, including striking a motion from calendar, or striking the complaint or answer." Nonetheless, in each of the cases, the plaintiff has been granted two separate extensions of time to file a motion for summary judgment; in each of the cases, the plaintiff has been warned that no further extensions of time would be granted absent a showing of good cause; and in each of the cases, the plaintiff has failed to timely file a summary judgment motion even though the deadlines for doing so expired on May 10, 2010 (see Kreisher v. Astrue, No. CIV S-09-1725 EFB, Dckt. No. 18), May 25, 2010 (see Carreira v. Astrue, No. CIV S-09-1672 EFB, Dckt. No. 19), and June 4, 2010 (see Burnham v. Astrue, No. CIV S-09-2054 EFB, Dckt. No. 19).

In light of this pattern of requested extensions and missed deadlines, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Each of the above-captioned plaintiffs is ordered to show cause, in writing, on or before August 11, 2010 why her case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and why plaintiffs and/or plaintiffs' counsel should not be monetarily sanctioned for failure to comply with court orders. See L.R. 110 (providing that failure to comply with the Local Rules or a court order "may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.").

2. Each plaintiff shall also file a motion for summary judgment and/or remand on or before August 11, 2010. Failure to timely file the required writings may result in dismissal and the imposition of monetary sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

3. Further, plaintiffs' counsel is ordered to appear in person on August 25, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 24 for a hearing regarding this order to show cause.

SO ORDERED.

20100712

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.