Maluf v. Bergelectric Corp
Opinion
Jorge E. Ordonez Maluf, 2:23-cv-00115-CDS-MDC Plaintiff(s), VS. Order Bergelectric Corp., Defendant(s). The Court received the following email that purports to be from the Court Reporter of □□□□□□□□□□□ deposition: From: Georgene Withrow, RPR
I did ask him the date of the subpoena & he told me "the 20th." I am scheduled for an all-day deposition on August 20th & can't take that off, but I'm not even sure of the month. I just don't know what to do. Am I obligated to keep coming to these hearings? What are my rights? Thank you for your time. Georgene Withrow, NV CCR, RPR While the allegations are concerning, the Court cannot act on such ex parte communication. Any requests for judicial relief or other Court action must be filed on the record and served on all g || affected parties. That said, plaintiff is cautioned that such conduct, if true and continued, will subject g || the plaintiff to considerable sanctions, including dismissal of his claims. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that: B 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to please mail a copy of this order to plaintiff at plaintiffs address of record: Jorge E. Ordonez Maluf 4952 S Rainbow Blvd #366 Las Vegas, NV 89118 310-343-0037 2. Defendant is directed to please mail a copy of this order to Court Reporter, Georgene Withrow. Dated: August 13, 2024 p 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. vo af tM Za fii °3 □ jf \ L. fi ff pT Hon. Maximifiano IJ. Couvillier III United States Magistrate Judge
Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Maluf v. Bergelectric Corp (Maluf v. Bergelectric Corp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.