Elgen Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Mac Arthur Co.

N.D. California

Elgen Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Mac Arthur Co.

District Court, N.D. California·Decided July 16, 2025·No. 4:23-cv-04924·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 ELGEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Case No. 23-cv-04924-JST INC., 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. 10 MAC ARTHUR CO., et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 On May 8, 2025, Defendants filed a notice of settlement, stating that the parties had settled 14 the litigation, that Defendants had satisfied their obligations under the settlement agreement, that 15 Plaintiff was therefore obligated to dismiss this case, and that Plaintiff had not done so. ECF No. 16 33. 17 On June 24, 2025, the Court issued an order regarding Defendants’ notice of settlement. 18 ECF No. 34. The order stated:

19 Unless the case is dismissed prior to that date, Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendant’s Notice of Settlement of Entire Case by July 20 8, 2024. ECF No. 33.

21 Counsel for all parties shall appear at a case management conference on July 15, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. The conference will be automatically 22 vacated if the case is dismissed prior to that time. 23 ECF No. 34. Plaintiff did not file a written response and did not appear as ordered on July 15, 24 2025. 25 Accordingly, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to show cause why the Court 26 should not impose monetary sanctions against them for their willful violation of a court order. See 27 Am. Unites for Kids v. Rousseau, 985 F.3d 1075, 1090 (9th Cir. 2021). A written response to this 1 The Court will conduct a hearing on this order to show cause on August 5, 2025 at 2:00 2 p.m. Ifthe case is dismissed with prejudice before that time, the hearing will be vacated. If 3 Plaintiff fails to file a written response to the order to show cause and/or fails to appear on August 4 5, 2025, the case will be dismissed with prejudice pursuant Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of 5 Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (‘Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal 6 under this subdivision (b) .. . operates as an adjudication on the merits.”). ® 8 Dated: July 16, 2025 JON S. TIGAR 10 nited States District Judge 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 6 7 ELGEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Case No. 23-cv-04924-JST INC., 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. 10 MAC ARTHUR CO., et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 On May 8, 2025, Defendants filed a notice of settlement, stating that the parties had settled 14 the litigation, that Defendants had satisfied their obligations under the settlement agreement, that 15 Plaintiff was therefore obligated to dismiss this case, and that Plaintiff had not done so. ECF No. 16 33. 17 On June 24, 2025, the Court issued an order regarding Defendants’ notice of settlement. 18 ECF No. 34. The order stated:

19 Unless the case is dismissed prior to that date, Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendant’s Notice of Settlement of Entire Case by July 20 8, 2024. ECF No. 33.

21 Counsel for all parties shall appear at a case management conference on July 15, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. The conference will be automatically 22 vacated if the case is dismissed prior to that time. 23 ECF No. 34. Plaintiff did not file a written response and did not appear as ordered on July 15, 24 2025. 25 Accordingly, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to show cause why the Court 26 should not impose monetary sanctions against them for their willful violation of a court order. See 27 Am. Unites for Kids v. Rousseau, 985 F.3d 1075, 1090 (9th Cir. 2021). A written response to this 1 The Court will conduct a hearing on this order to show cause on August 5, 2025 at 2:00 2 p.m. Ifthe case is dismissed with prejudice before that time, the hearing will be vacated. If 3 Plaintiff fails to file a written response to the order to show cause and/or fails to appear on August 4 5, 2025, the case will be dismissed with prejudice pursuant Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of 5 Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (‘Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal 6 under this subdivision (b) .. . operates as an adjudication on the merits.”). ® 8 Dated: July 16, 2025 JON S. TIGAR 10 nited States District Judge 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Elgen Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Mac Arthur Co., (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Elgen Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Mac Arthur Co. (Elgen Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Mac Arthur Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related