Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Elliott, v. Solis,, 1:17-cv-01214-LJO-SAB. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180110802 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jan. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 09, 2018
Summary: ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF No. 20) STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . On November 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Deputy Andres Solis, County of Fresno, Robert Ross, and Patrick J. McComb dba as Drive America. (ECF No. 18.) On December 11, 2017, Defendants County of Fresno and Deputy Andres Solis filed an answer to the first amended complaint. (ECF No. 19.) Defendants Robert Ross and Patrick J. McComb did not file an answer or othe
More

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(ECF No. 20)

On November 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Deputy Andres Solis, County of Fresno, Robert Ross, and Patrick J. McComb dba as Drive America. (ECF No. 18.) On December 11, 2017, Defendants County of Fresno and Deputy Andres Solis filed an answer to the first amended complaint. (ECF No. 19.) Defendants Robert Ross and Patrick J. McComb did not file an answer or otherwise responded to the first amended complaint. On December 27, 2017, an order issued requiring Defendants Ross and McComb to show cause why default should not be entered against them for failure to file a responsive pleading.

On December 28, 2017, Defendants Ross and McComb filed an answer to the first amended complaint. Defendants response to the order to show cause was due on January 8, 2018, but they did not otherwise respond to the order to show cause. Counsel for Defendants Ross and McComb are admonished that when an order issues requiring a party to show cause for a failure to comply simply remedying the failure to comply is not a sufficient response. In this instance, the Court shall discharge the order to show cause as the answer has now been filed. But should any further order requiring cause to be shown issue, the party is required to file a response addressing the reason for the failure to comply and any actions taken to prevent such failure to comply in the future if necessary.

Accordingly, the December 27, 2017 order requiring Defendants Robert Ross and Patrick J. McComb to show cause for their failure to respond to the first amended complaint is HEREBY DISCHARGED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer