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.

Vega v. Suntrust Mortgage

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 13, 2010

LORENZO DE VEGA, AND VIRGINIA S. DE VEGA, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Frank C. Damrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS AND DISMISSING CASE

On August 9, 2010, plaintiffs' counsel, Peter Cabbiness, was ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned in the amount of $300.00 for his continual failure to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss in compliance with Local Rule 230(c). Counsel's response to the Order to Show Cause and pending motion was due on or before September 10, 2010. Mr. Cabbiness has failed to file any response. The court's August 9, 2010 Order also warned counsel and plaintiffs that the case would be summarily dismissed if a response was not timely received.

The court therefore makes the following orders:

1. Mr. Cabbiness shall pay sanctions in the amount of $300.00. Payment should be in the form of a check made payable to the Clerk of the Court. The sum is to be paid personally by plaintiffs' counsel not later than fourteen (14) days from the filing of this Order for Sanctions.

2. This sanction is personal to the attorney, is to be borne by him personally, and is not to be transmitted to the client by way of a charge of attorney's fees and/or costs.

3. Counsel is further reminded that payment of $150.00 is additionally due pursuant to the court's July 26, 2010 Order. Said payment is now overdue. If counsel does not pay said amount within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, the court may impose further monetary sanctions by separate order.

4. Not later than twenty-one (21) days from the filing of this Order, plaintiffs' counsel shall file a declaration attesting to his compliance with the terms of this Order.

5. Plaintiffs' case is dismissed for failure to prosecute, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and for repeated failures to respond to the court's orders, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). With respect to dismissal for failure to follow court orders, the court has reviewed the five factors set forth in Ferdik and finds that each warrants dismissal of plaintiffs' case.

6. The hearing set for September 24, 2010 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100913

© 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.