MANKEL v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, 3:16-cv-00657-HDM-VPC. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20170926b71
Visitors: 5
Filed: Sep. 25, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 25, 2017
Summary: ORDER HOWARD D. McKIBBEN , District Judge . Before the court is the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 25) recommending that the court grant the plaintiff's motion for order to show cause (ECF No. 21). No objections to the report and recommendation have been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. The court has considered the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other relevant matters of record and has made a review and determination in acc
Summary: ORDER HOWARD D. McKIBBEN , District Judge . Before the court is the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 25) recommending that the court grant the plaintiff's motion for order to show cause (ECF No. 21). No objections to the report and recommendation have been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. The court has considered the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other relevant matters of record and has made a review and determination in acco..
More
ORDER
HOWARD D. McKIBBEN, District Judge.
Before the court is the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 25) recommending that the court grant the plaintiff's motion for order to show cause (ECF No. 21). No objections to the report and recommendation have been filed, and the time for doing so has expired.
The court has considered the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other relevant matters of record and has made a review and determination in accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law, and good cause appearing, the court hereby ADOPTS AND ACCEPTS the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 25).
Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for an order to show cause why Daliz Rodriguez should not be held in contempt (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED. Mr. Rodriguez is hereby ordered to reimburse plaintiff for costs in the amount of $1,180.70 for his failure to comply with his deposition subpoena on May 4, 2017. Mr. Rodriguez is further ordered to show cause before this court why he should not be held in contempt for the same. The show cause hearing will be set by separate order. Should Mr. Rodriguez fail to appear before this court at the designated time, the court will consider whether to adjudicate Mr. Rodriguez in contempt and issue a bench warrant for his arrest.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
