Laurino v. United States Postal Service

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MARICELA LAURINO, Case No. 1:18-cv-00636-JLT-SAB Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST THE v. DOCKET TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL Defendant. ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF Nos. 80, 83, 84, 85) This consolidated action proceeded with two sets of Plaintiffs against Defendant United States of America. A settlement conference was held on May 23, 2022, before Magistrate Judge Carolyn Delaney, at which the parties reached a settlement agreement and were to file dispositional documents within thirty days. (ECF No. 79.) On June 24, 2022, Maricela Laurino, Irma Jurado, Vivian Jurado, and Yvette Jurado (the “Laurino Plaintiffs”) filed a stipulation of dismissal as to their claims against Defendant. (ECF No. 80.) On the same date, Defendant United States filed an ex parte request for a fifteen (15) day extension of time to file dispositional documents as to the claims asserted by Patricia Jurado, Joel Jurado, and Manuel Jurado, Jr. (the “Jurado Plaintiffs”). (ECF No. 81.) On June 27, 2022, Magistrate Judge Delaney granted the request for an extension of time to file dispositional documents until July 8, 2022. (ECF No. 82.) On June 28, 2022, the Court issued an order entering the stipulated dismissal of the Laurino Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 83.) The Court also ordered the Jurado Plaintiffs to show cause in writing why monetary sanctions should not issue for the failure to file dispositional documents by the deadline to do so. Ud.) On June 29, 2022, a stipulation of dismissal of the claims between the Jurado Plaintiffs and Defendant was filed, and on June 30, 2022, a declaration of the Jurado Plaintiff's counsel was filed in response to the order to show cause. (ECF Nos. 84, 85.) Counsel’s declaration explains the delay in the settlement agreement going through the firm’s auditing process; an overlapping complex trial; and impleads the Court not to impose sanctions against his clients but rather against counsel, and impleads such sanctions be below $1,000. (ECF No. 85.) Based on the counsel’s declaration, the Court finds no need to impose monetary sanctions. Further, in light of the fact that all parties have now stipulated to the dismissal of this action, this action has been terminated, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)Gi); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been dismissed with prejudice and without an award of costs or attorneys’ fees. The Court shall close this action. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the file in this case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a); and 2. The June 28, 2022 order to show cause issued as to Plaintiffs Patricia Jurado, Joel Jurado, and Manuel Jurado, Jr. ECF No. 83), is DISCHARGED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le Dated: _ June 30, 2022 _ Of UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE