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.

Esmeralda Ocampo, et al v. Weeks Wholesale Rose

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 3, 2012

ESMERALDA OCAMPO, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
WEEKS WHOLESALE ROSE GROWER, INC., ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS, INCLUDING DISMISSAL, SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDERS AND TO PROSECUTE THIS ACTION

On October 19, 2010, Defendant Weeks Wholesale Rose Grower, Inc., filed a notice of filing bankruptcy. (Doc. 6) Soon thereafter, on December 3, 2010, the Court issued is acknowledgement of the bankruptcy filing and ordered, "Plaintiff shall obtain an order for relief from stay of bankruptcy as to said Defendants, or give notice of its intent to proceed with the balance of this action as to all other Defendants except as to the bankrupt parties. Plaintiff shall notify the court within 45 days as to the actions it has taken." (Doc. 7, emphasis added) Despite this, Plaintiffs have never responded to the Court's order and the matter has languished.

ORDER

Within 10 days, Plaintiffs SHALL show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, up to and 3 including an order of dismissal, based upon Plaintiffs' failure to comply with the Court's orders and its 4 failure to prosecute this action. 5 6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20121203

© 1992-2012 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.