Opinion
2:21-cv-08553-SSS-ASx
08-22-2022
Kimberly Snover, et al. v. FCA U.S. LLC, et al.
Present: The Honorable SUNSHINE S. SYKES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
CIVIL MINUTES- GENERAL
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT'S REQUEST
On July 1, 2022, Plaintiffs Kimberly Snover and Steven Snover filed a Request for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to FRCP 68(a) (the “Request”) [Dkt. 35], indicating Plaintiffs had accepted Defendant FCA U.S. LLC's Offer of Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 68. However, no proposed Judgement was provided by the parties. On July 6, 2022, this Court's Courtroom Deputy Clerk sent an email to lead counsel for Plaintiffs Tionna Dolin and then-counsel for Defendant Matthew M. Proudfoot informing them the Court had received the parties' Request and requesting that the parties e-file a Notice of Lodging with the proposed Judgment and provide the Word version proposed Judgment by email. On July 19, 2022, a follow-up email was sent to all counsel for Plaintiffs Tionna Dolin; Ariel Harman-Holmes; and Daniel A. Law, and recently retained counsel for Defendant Eric D. Sentlinger; Gurpreet Sandhu; Sarah Marie Carlson Lambert; and Spencer Peter Hugret. On August 15, 2022, this Court's Courtroom Deputy Clerk sent a second follow-up email to counsel for Plaintiffs Tionna Dolin; Ariel Harman-Holmes; and Daniel A. Law and counsel for Defendant Eric D. Sentlinger; Gurpreet Sandhu; 1 Sarah Marie Carlson Lambert; and Spencer Peter Hugret. As of today's date, the parties have failed to 1) e-file the Notice of Lodging with the proposed Judgment or 2) reply to this Court's Courtroom Deputy Clerk as to the reason why the proposed Judgment has not been lodged.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS counsel for Plaintiffs Tionna Dolin; Ariel Harman-Holmes; and Daniel A. Law and counsel for Defendant Eric D. Sentlinger; Gurpreet Sandhu; Sarah Marie Carlson Lambert; and Spencer Peter Hugret to show cause why they should not each be sanctioned in the amount of $250 for their failure to comply with the Court's Request.
Counsel is required to respond in writing on or before September 6, 2022, at 12:00 PM. Counsel's failure to respond or file a satisfactory response may result in the imposition of sanctions against counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2