J.A. EX REL. ETIENNE v. BEARDSLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 1:16-cv-01234 DAD JLT. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20161129d22
Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 28, 2016
Summary: ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . After verifying that no defendant had answered this action, the Court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to prosecute the action. (Doc. 4) in the same order, the Court ordered the defendants to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to respond to the complaint or to respond to the complaint. Id. Plaintiff explained that there had b
Summary: ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . After verifying that no defendant had answered this action, the Court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to prosecute the action. (Doc. 4) in the same order, the Court ordered the defendants to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to respond to the complaint or to respond to the complaint. Id. Plaintiff explained that there had be..
More
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
After verifying that no defendant had answered this action, the Court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to prosecute the action. (Doc. 4) in the same order, the Court ordered the defendants to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to respond to the complaint or to respond to the complaint. Id.
Plaintiff explained that there had been discussions with counsel about remanding the matter to state court which was why the plaintiff had not sought default. (Doc. 5) In addition, all of the defendants, except Ms. Hooker, have now answered. (Doc. 9) As to Ms. Hooker, an attorney she consulted notified the Court that she has declared bankruptcy and would not be responding to the complaint. (Doc. 8) The Court has confirmed that Ms. Hooker has, indeed, filed a bankruptcy action.1
Therefore, the Court ORDERS:
1. The order to show cause (Doc. 4) is DISCHARGED:
2. The action is STAYED as to Vanessa Jean Hooker only based upon the automatic stay imposed by the filing of the bankruptcy action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The court may take notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1993). The record of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California is a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Therefore, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact of Ms. Hooker's filing of the bankruptcy action. Mullis v. United States Bank. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 n.9 (9th Cir. 1987); Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1 (N.D.Cal.1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.); see also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989); Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th. Cir. 1980).
Source: Leagle
