From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Madero v. McLane Foodservice, Inc.

United States District Court, Central District of California
Jun 18, 2024
EDCV 24-73-KK-DTBx (C.D. Cal. Jun. 18, 2024)

Opinion

EDCV 24-73-KK-DTBx

06-18-2024

Jordan Orozco Madero, et al. v. McLane Foodservice, Inc.


Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and Reply Should Not Be Stricken [Dkts. 37, 41]

On May 15, 2024, Plaintiffs appear to have mistakenly filed a Motion to Remand in the instant action. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 37. On May 21, 2024, before Defendant filed any Opposition, Plaintiffs filed a Reply, which also appears to be a mistake. Dkt. 41.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall file a response explaining why these pleadings should not be stricken no later than June 25, 2024. Failure to comply with this Order will result in sanctions including dismissal for failure to prosecute or follow court orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Madero v. McLane Foodservice, Inc.

United States District Court, Central District of California
Jun 18, 2024
EDCV 24-73-KK-DTBx (C.D. Cal. Jun. 18, 2024)
Case details for

Madero v. McLane Foodservice, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Jordan Orozco Madero, et al. v. McLane Foodservice, Inc.

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Jun 18, 2024

Citations

EDCV 24-73-KK-DTBx (C.D. Cal. Jun. 18, 2024)