Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

NOONER v. EL DORADO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, CIV. S-11-2367-KJM-JFM. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20120309864 Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 08, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 08, 2012
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY MUELLER, District Judge. On October 3, 2011, defendant El Dorado Union High School District moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. (ECF 6.) Plaintiffs did not oppose defendant's motion or file a notice of non-opposition within the time prescribed by Local Rule 230. On November 3, 2011, the court issued an order to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF 11.) Plaintiffs' counsel, Douglas Watts, placed the blame on himself, citing his lack
More

ORDER

KIMBERLY MUELLER, District Judge.

On October 3, 2011, defendant El Dorado Union High School District moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. (ECF 6.) Plaintiffs did not oppose defendant's motion or file a notice of non-opposition within the time prescribed by Local Rule 230. On November 3, 2011, the court issued an order to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF 11.) Plaintiffs' counsel, Douglas Watts, placed the blame on himself, citing his lack of familiarity with federal practice. (ECF 12.) The court then discharged the order to show cause, fined plaintiffs' counsel, and allowed plaintiffs time to file an opposition. (ECF 13.)

Prior to hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss, after reviewing the briefing and the docket, the court issued an order to show cause why defendant should not be dismissed from the action based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. (ECF 18.) Plaintiffs did not respond to this order to show cause and the defendant was thereafter dismissed. (ECF 19.) In the same order, the court issued an order to show cause why plaintiffs' counsel should not be fined for failing to respond to the court's February 3 order to show cause. (Id.) Counsel did not respond to this order to show cause either.

The dismissal of defendant El Dorado School District moots its motion to strike portions of the complaint. The court also has requested further briefing regarding standing, and will address that issue, if necessary, in the context of a motion brought by the remaining defendants.

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows:

1. Defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief and references to Riley Nooner is DENIED as moot, as defendant is no longer a party to the present action;

2. Plaintiffs are directed, no later than April 2, 2012, to file an amended complaint that omits El Dorado Union School District as a defendant and further omits any request for relief from El Dorado Union School District; and

3. Douglas Watts shall pay sanctions in the amount of $500.00 for his failure to file a response to the order to show cause filed on February 9, 2012. Payment shall be in the form of a check made payable to the Clerk of the Court. The sum is to be paid personally by Mr. Watts not later than fourteen (14) days from the filing of this order.

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