Opinion
For Trustees of the Southern California Pipe Trades Health and Welfare Trust Fund, Trustees of the Southern California Pipe Trades Pensioners and Surviving Spouses Health Fund, Trustees of the Southern California Pipe Trades Retirement Trust Fund, Trustees of the Southern California Pipe Trades Defined Contribution Trust Fund, Trustees of the Southern California Pipe Trades Vacation and Holiday Trust Fund, Trustees of the Southern California Pipe Trades Christmas Bonus Fund, Trustees of the Apprentice and Journeyman Training Trust Fund, Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund, Trustees of the International Training Fund, Plaintiffs: Matthew T Bechtel, Laquer Urban Clifford and Hodge LLP, Pasadena, CA.
Rogelio Arellano Jr., an individual, Defendant, Pro se, Bakersfield, CA.
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Abstract of Judgment
The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge.
On May 11, 2015, the court issued an order granting plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment against co-defendant AP Mechanical, Inc. (" APM"). (See Order re: Plaintiffs' Motions for Default Judgment at 10). The same day, the court issued judgment against APM. (See Judgment of May 11, 2015). On May 15, 2015, the court vacated the judgment, due to the pendency of plaintiffs' claims against co-defendant Rogelio Arellano (" Arellano"). (See Order Vacating Judgment and Order to Show Cause Re: Potential Dismissal of Rogelio Arellano). Plaintiffs have filed a declaration stating their intention to pursue their claims against Arellano, who is purportedly the " sole officer" of APM. (See Declaration of Matthew T. Bechtel in Response to Order to Show Cause re: Potential Dismissal of Rogelio Arellano at ¶ 2). Nevertheless, plaintiffs filed an Abstract of Judgment, which was based on the vacated May 11, 2015, judgment. (See Abstract of Judgment, of May 18, 2015).
Based on the foregoing, no later than June 4, 2015, plaintiffs shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for filing an abstract of judgment after the judgment had been vacated. Plaintiffs' response shall describe all efforts plaintiffs have made with respect to enforcing the judgment. Plaintiffs shall forthwith cease all efforts to enforce the judgment. Defendants are also granted leave to file a brief by the same deadline. Each brief shall be limited to five (5) pages. Plaintiffs' failure to respond to the OSC by the deadline set forth above shall be deemed as consent to the imposition of monetary sanctions to be determined by the court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.