Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Kratz Aerial Ag Service, Inc. v. Slykerman, 1:15-cv-01070-MCE-JLT. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190705731 Visitors: 1
Filed: Jul. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 02, 2019
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . On November 14, 2018, this matter was set for a Status Conference Regarding Trial Setting and the parties were ordered to file a Joint Status Report prior to that date. ECF No. 73. The Status Conference was vacated after the Court received two individual status reports, and an additional third individual status report was thereafter filed as well. ECF Nos. 74, 75, 77. Having reviewed those filings and the record in its entirety, it was
More

ORDER

On November 14, 2018, this matter was set for a Status Conference Regarding Trial Setting and the parties were ordered to file a Joint Status Report prior to that date. ECF No. 73. The Status Conference was vacated after the Court received two individual status reports, and an additional third individual status report was thereafter filed as well. ECF Nos. 74, 75, 77. Having reviewed those filings and the record in its entirety, it was unclear to the Court what, if anything, the parties had done during the four year pendency of this case to move their claims and counterclaims along. Moreover, the parties had failed to participate, as directed by the Court, ECF No. 73, in its Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program. Accordingly, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") directing the parties to show cause in writing in a joint filing as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to follow the applicable rules and orders of this Court. ECF No. 78. The Court warned them that "[f]ailure to timely comply with this Order, including by filing further individual reports, will result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice upon no further notice to the parties." Id. at 2.

The parties timely filed individual responses, again ignoring the Court's explicit directive that a joint filing was required. Moreover, neither side explained why they have wholly failed to litigate this case or how they intend to proceed given that discovery is closed and no discovery has apparently been conducted. The parties' flagrant disregard of the requirements of litigating in federal court has not only to sabotaged their own claims, but it has wasted this Court's limited resources. Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with the applicable rules and orders of this Court and because both sides have failed to prosecute their claims. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(b). The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

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