CASILDO v. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES

Case No. 1:17-cv-00601 LJO JLT.

OLGA CASILDO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 05 U.S.C. § 704
Cause: 05 U.S.C. § 704 Labor Litigation
Nature of Suit: 790 Labor: Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Olga Casildo, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Bryce Kingsley , Kingsley & Kingsley APC.

Olga Casildo, Plaintiff, represented by Kelsey M. Peterson-More , Kingsley & Kingsley & Mario Martinez , Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch Aplc.

Jaime Chino Severiano, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Bryce Kingsley , Kingsley & Kingsley APC, Kelsey M. Peterson-More , Kingsley & Kingsley & Mario Martinez , Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch Aplc.

Esparza Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel K. Klingenberger , LeBeau-Thelen, LLP.


ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDERS AND TO PROSECUTE THIS ACTION; ORDER CONTINUING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

On April 28, 2017, the plaintiffs initiated this action for themselves and on behalf of a prospective class. (Doc. 1) On May 1, 2017, the Court issued the summons (Doc. 4) and its order setting the mandatory scheduling conference to occur on July 26, 2017. (Doc. 5) In its order setting the mandatory scheduling conference, the Court advised counsel:

The Court is unable to conduct a scheduling conference until defendants have been served with the summons and complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff(s) shall diligently pursue service of summons and complaint and dismiss those defendants against whom plaintiff(s) will not pursue claims. Plaintiff(s) shall promptly file proofs of service of the summons and complaint so the Court has a record of service. Counsel are referred to F.R.Civ.P., Rule 4 regarding the requirement of timely service of the complaint. Failure to timely serve summons and complaint may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.

(Doc. 5 at 1-2, emphasis added) Despite this, the plaintiffs have not filed a proof of service of the summons and complaint as to the defendant. Nevertheless, on May 22, 2017, the parties stipulated to allow the defendant until June 19, 2017 to file a responsive pleading (Doc. 6); this has not occurred. Therefore, the Court ORDERS,

1. No later than July 21, 2017, the plaintiffs SHALL show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to serve and file proofs of service on the defendants. Alternatively, the plaintiff may file proofs of service;

2. Due the failure of the defendant to appear and the lack of proof of service which would prevent entry of default, the scheduling conference, currently set on June 26, 2017 is CONTINUED to August 21, 2017 at 8:30 a.m.

Plaintiff is reminded of the service obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Failure to comply may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases