From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barajas v. Walmart, Inc.

United States District Court, Central District of California
Jan 2, 2024
5:23-cv-02026-SSS-SPx (C.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2024)

Opinion

5:23-cv-02026-SSS-SPx

01-02-2024

Mary Angelina Barajas v. Walmart, Inc., et al.


CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

SUNSHINE S. SYKES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed Against Plaintiff's and Defendant's Counsel for Failure to File a Rule 26(f) Report

On November 8, 2023, the Court issued an order setting the Scheduling Conference for January 12, 2024 [Dkt. 10]. Pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties are to file their Joint Rule 26(f) Report not later than 14 days before the Scheduling Conference. As of today's date, the parties have not filed a Joint Rule 26(f) Report.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS counsel for Plaintiff, Shaun J. Bauman, and counsel for Defendant, Christopher M. McDonald and Laurie Eunjoo Yoon, to show cause why they should not each be sanctioned in the amount of $250 for their failure to file a timely Joint Rule 26(f) Report. Counsel are DIRECTED to respond in writing to this Order to Show Cause by Monday, January 8, 2024, at 12:00 noon. Counsel's failure to respond-or counsel's filing of an inadequate response-may result in the imposition of additional sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Barajas v. Walmart, Inc.

United States District Court, Central District of California
Jan 2, 2024
5:23-cv-02026-SSS-SPx (C.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2024)
Case details for

Barajas v. Walmart, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Mary Angelina Barajas v. Walmart, Inc., et al.

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Jan 2, 2024

Citations

5:23-cv-02026-SSS-SPx (C.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2024)