(PS) Winding v. Allstate Ins.

E.D. California

(PS) Winding v. Allstate Ins.

DecidedApril 12, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-02363

StatusUnknown

This text of (PS) Winding v. Allstate Ins. ((PS) Winding v. Allstate Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PS) Winding v. Allstate Ins., (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACOB WINDING, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02363-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 ALLSTATE INSURANCE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On March 6, 2024, defendant filed a motion to consolidate and stay cases. ECF No. 12. 18 To date, plaintiffs have not filed a response to the motion. 19 Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or 20 statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. 21 E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet 22 certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to 23 comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon 24 Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 25 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a 26 duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See 27 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 28 1 The court will give plaintiffs the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be 2 | imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. 3 | Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and 4 | will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 6 1. The April 18, 2024 hearing on defendant’s motion is continued to May 16, 2024, at 7 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 9. 8 2. By no later than April 25, 2024, plaintiffs shall file an opposition or statement of non- 9 | opposition to defendant’s motion. See ECF No. 12. 10 3. Plaintiffs shall show cause, by no later than April 25, 2024, why sanctions should not 11 | be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s 12 | motion. 13 4. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiffs’ opposition, if any, no later than May 2, 2024. 14 5. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be 15 | dismissed for lack of prosecution, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to comply with 16 | local rules. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ( q Sty — Dated: _ April 11, 2024 20 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACOB WINDING, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02363-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 ALLSTATE INSURANCE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On March 6, 2024, defendant filed a motion to consolidate and stay cases. ECF No. 12. 18 To date, plaintiffs have not filed a response to the motion. 19 Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or 20 statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. 21 E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet 22 certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to 23 comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon 24 Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 25 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a 26 duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See 27 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 28 1 The court will give plaintiffs the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be 2 | imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. 3 | Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and 4 | will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 6 1. The April 18, 2024 hearing on defendant’s motion is continued to May 16, 2024, at 7 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 9. 8 2. By no later than April 25, 2024, plaintiffs shall file an opposition or statement of non- 9 | opposition to defendant’s motion. See ECF No. 12. 10 3. Plaintiffs shall show cause, by no later than April 25, 2024, why sanctions should not 11 | be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s 12 | motion. 13 4. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiffs’ opposition, if any, no later than May 2, 2024. 14 5. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be 15 | dismissed for lack of prosecution, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to comply with 16 | local rules. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ( q Sty — Dated: _ April 11, 2024 20 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PS) Winding v. Allstate Ins., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ps-winding-v-allstate-ins-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack