UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 18, 2012
EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
MICHAEL A. BRANDT, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER TO PLANITIFFS, DEFENDANTS AND COUNSEL WHY SANCTIONS HOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR THEIR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER SHOULD COUNSEL OR A PARTY APPEARING PRO SE FAIL TO APPEAR AT THE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE, OR FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS AS SET FORTH ABOVE, AN EX PARTE HEARING MAY BE HELD AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL, DEFAULT, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED, OR SANCTIONS, INCLUDING CONTEMPT OF COURT, MAY BE IMPOSED AND/OR ORDERED.
On November 30, 2012, this matter was removed from Kern County Superior Court. (Doc. 1) On that same day, the Court issued new case documents and set the mandatory scheduling conference on March 13, 2012. (Doc. 2) After conferring on a range of topics, this order required the parties to file a joint scheduling conference statement one week before the scheduling conference. (Doc. 2 at 2) Due to the unavailability of the Court, on February 29, 2012, the Court reset the matter to April 18, 2012. (Doc. 3) Thus, the joint scheduling conference report was due on April 11, 2012. The Court's November 30, 2012 order advised, (Doc. 2 at 8, emphasis in the original) 2 Despite these orders, no joint scheduling report-or, indeed, any report-- was filed. Moreover, 3 on April 18, 2012, no party or counsel appeared at the scheduling conference.
Therefore, within 14 days, the Court ORDERS the parties and counsel to show cause why 5 sanctions should not be imposed based upon their failure to comply with the Court's orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.