Kurtis A. Meek v. BP Products North America, et al.

E.D. California

Kurtis A. Meek v. BP Products North America, et al.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided March 17, 2026·No. 2:25-cv-03318·Unknown

Opinion

KURTIS A. MEEK, Case No. 2:25-cv-3318-DC-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

On February 2, 2026, defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims. ECF No. 16. To date, plaintiff has not responded to defendants’ motion. Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. ] The court will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result in dismissal of this action. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The March 19, 2026 hearing on defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is continued to April 30, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. 2. The initial scheduling conference and hearing on plaintiff's motion to remand, both currently set for March 19, 2026, are continued to April 30, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. 3. By no later than April 2, 2026, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non- opposition to defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. 4. Plaintiff shall show cause, by no later than April 2, 2026, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. 5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, no later than April 16, 2026.

Dated: _ March 17, 2026 Q_——_ JEREMY D. PETERSON 51 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

KURTIS A. MEEK, Case No. 2:25-cv-3318-DC-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

On February 2, 2026, defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims. ECF No. 16. To date, plaintiff has not responded to defendants’ motion. Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. ] The court will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result in dismissal of this action. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The March 19, 2026 hearing on defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is continued to April 30, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. 2. The initial scheduling conference and hearing on plaintiff's motion to remand, both currently set for March 19, 2026, are continued to April 30, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. 3. By no later than April 2, 2026, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non- opposition to defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. 4. Plaintiff shall show cause, by no later than April 2, 2026, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. 5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, no later than April 16, 2026.

Dated: _ March 17, 2026 Q_——_ JEREMY D. PETERSON 51 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Kurtis A. Meek v. BP Products North America, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Kurtis A. Meek v. BP Products North America, et al. (Kurtis A. Meek v. BP Products North America, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related