Thomas
Thomas v. Ace Market
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY THOMAS, No. 2:24-cv-02234-DAD-CSK Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED
ACE MARKET, et al., AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding through counsel, filed a complaint initiating this action on August 19, 18 2024. (Doc. No. 1.) The same day, a summons was issued and an initial scheduling conference 19 was set for January 14, 2025. (Doc. Nos. 2, 3.) On January 3, 2025, in light of the apparent lack 20 of service on defendants and the parties’ failure to file a joint status report as required, the court 21 reset the initial scheduling conference for February 24, 2025 and ordered the parties to file a 22 status report regarding scheduling no later than February 10, 2025. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff’s 23 counsel, Beilal M. Chatila, again did not file any report in compliance with the court’s orders and 24 failed to appear at the February 24, 2025 initial scheduling conference. (Doc.…