SWECO PRODUCTS, INC. v. SUTTER EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., CIV S-11-2211 KJM-EFB. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120112b98
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 10, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 10, 2012
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY MUELLER, District Judge. On December 20, 2011, the court ordered defendant's counsel to show cause, within fourteen days, why sanctions should not be imposed against him or his client for failure to file a responsive pleading. (ECF 8.) Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case on December 22, 2011. (ECF 9.) Reading between the lines, as it should not have to do, the court gathers that plaintiff did not file the dismissal as promptly as defense counsel anticipated. The best pract
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY MUELLER, District Judge. On December 20, 2011, the court ordered defendant's counsel to show cause, within fourteen days, why sanctions should not be imposed against him or his client for failure to file a responsive pleading. (ECF 8.) Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case on December 22, 2011. (ECF 9.) Reading between the lines, as it should not have to do, the court gathers that plaintiff did not file the dismissal as promptly as defense counsel anticipated. The best practi..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY MUELLER, District Judge.
On December 20, 2011, the court ordered defendant's counsel to show cause, within fourteen days, why sanctions should not be imposed against him or his client for failure to file a responsive pleading. (ECF 8.) Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case on December 22, 2011. (ECF 9.) Reading between the lines, as it should not have to do, the court gathers that plaintiff did not file the dismissal as promptly as defense counsel anticipated. The best practice would have been to advise the court once the deadline passed for responding to the complaint. Nevertheless, in light of dismissal of the case, the order to show cause is discharged.
Source: Leagle
