Johnson v. M & T San Mateo Properties, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 21-cv-08339-JSW Plaintiff, 8 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 9 v. MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 10 M & T SAN MATEO PROPERTIES, LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 18 Defendant. 11 12 13 On June 9, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Plaintiff to show cause why this case should 14 not be dismissed based on the failure to comply with two deadlines set by the Court. The Court 15 directed that Plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause would be due by June 17, 2022. It 16 also stated that anything other than a specific response to this Order would not suffice. Plaintiff 17 submitted a stipulation of dismissal on June 13, 2022, which the Court approved. 18 The Court did not, however, discharge the Order to Show Cause, and Plaintiff did not file a 19 response on June 17, 2022. Accordingly, the Court issues this Order to Show Cause why 20 monetary sanctions in the amount of $150.00 should not be imposed on Plaintiff and/or his 21 counsel for repeated failures to comply with the Court’s deadlines. See, e.g., Williamson Fam. 22 Trust v. CIT Group/Consumer Fin., Inc., 205 Fed. Appx. 616, 617 (9thc Cir. 2006) (citing Cooter 23 & Gell v. Hartmax Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 396 (1990)). 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // ] The response shall be due by June 28, 2022, and if the Court does not receive a response, it 2 || will impose the sanctions without further order. 3 IT ISSO ORDERED. = “| 4 || Dated: June 21, 2022 / | é ( 5 / EFFREY S. WHE 6 / Unite / States Dyftrict Judge

8 9 10 1]

«17

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