From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lourim v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A.

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 25, 2010
NO. CIV. S-09-3131 LKK/KJM (E.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2010)

Opinion

NO. CIV. S-09-3131 LKK/KJM.

February 25, 2010


ORDER


On January 28, 2010, the court ordered counsel for plaintiff to show cause why sanctions, including a fine of $150 and/or dismissal of the case, should not issue for failure timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss. See Doc. No. 16. Counsel responded to the order to show cause on February 8, 2010. See Doc. No. 20. Counsel's argument is that he has an "extensive pending caseload," and inadvertently failed to comply with the filing deadline.

No good cause shown, the court hereby ORDERS that counsel for plaintiff is SANCTIONED in the amount of one hundred and fifty ($150.00) dollars. This sum shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Counsel shall file an affidavit accompanying the payment of this sanction which states that it is paid personally by counsel, out of personal funds, and is not and will not be billed, directly or indirectly, to the client or in any way made the responsibility of the client as attorneys' fees or costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Lourim v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A.

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 25, 2010
NO. CIV. S-09-3131 LKK/KJM (E.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2010)
Case details for

Lourim v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A.

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL LOURIM, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A., GEORGE SANDERS…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 25, 2010

Citations

NO. CIV. S-09-3131 LKK/KJM (E.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2010)