From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sarkis v. Yolo Cnty. Pub. Agency Risk Mgt. Ins. Auth.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 28, 2022
2:21-cv-01097-TLN-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-01097-TLN-JDP (PS)

11-28-2022

ARMOND SARKIS, Plaintiff, v. YOLO COUNTY PUBLIC AGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT INSURANCE AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES

ECF No. 21

JEREMY D. PETERSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On October 28, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion to strike defendants' affirmative defenses. ECF No. 21. Under the court's local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To date, defendants have filed neither an opposition nor a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff's motion.

On October 14, 2022, defendants attempted to amend their answer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). ECF No. 25. That rule permits a party to amend its pleading within twenty-one days of service of a motion to strike “if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required.” Fed. R. Civ. 15(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff was not required to respond to defendants' answer. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1)(C). Consequently, defendants only had twenty-one days from the date they filed their answer to amend that answer as a matter of course. Defendants, however, waited approximately one month before attempting to amend. Since defendants were not permitted to amend their answer as a matter of course at that time, the amended answer, ECF No. 25, must be disregarded. Defendants are notified that if they wish to amend their answer, they must obtain either plaintiff's written consent or leave of court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).

Defendants will be ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to timely respond to plaintiff's motion. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The December 15, 2022 hearing on plaintiff's motion to strike is continued to January 19, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 9.

2. By no later than January 5, 2023, defendants shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to plaintiff's motion to strike. See ECF No. 21.

3. Defendants shall show cause, by no later than January 5, 2023, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to plaintiff's motion.

4. Plaintiff may file a reply to defendants' opposition, if any, no later than January 12, 2023.

5. Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that defendants' answer be stricken and their default entered.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Sarkis v. Yolo Cnty. Pub. Agency Risk Mgt. Ins. Auth.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 28, 2022
2:21-cv-01097-TLN-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2022)
Case details for

Sarkis v. Yolo Cnty. Pub. Agency Risk Mgt. Ins. Auth.

Case Details

Full title:ARMOND SARKIS, Plaintiff, v. YOLO COUNTY PUBLIC AGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 28, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-01097-TLN-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2022)