IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 5, 2013
SCOTT N. JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF,
HARRY FERRONI ENTERPRISES, ET AL.,
On October 17, 2012, plaintiff filed notice that this case had settled and represented that dispositional documents would be filed within twenty days of the date of that notice. ECF No. 7. On November 16, 2012, beyond the twenty days originally sought, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time until December 10, 2012, saying only that the parties were "in the process of finalizing a settlement agreement and require longer than the 30 day grace period." ECF No. 10. The court granted the request. ECF No. 11. On December 12, 2012, again after the additional time requested, plaintiff filed a second request for an extension of time, again saying the same thing: that the parties "are in the process of finalizing a settlement agreement and require longer than the thirty day grace period." ECF No. 12.
Under Local Rule 160, this court may "on good cause shown, extend the time for filing the dispositional papers. A failure to file dispositional papers on the date prescribed by the Court may be grounds for sanctions." Plaintiff has not only filed both extension requests late, he has utterly failed to show good cause for the requests. Accordingly, the request (ECF No. 12) is denied and plaintiff is directed to show cause within fourteen days of the date of this order why he should not be subject to monetary sanctions or dismissal for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.