City of Merced v. R A Fields Inc

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 15, 20251:92-cv-05627California450 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CITY OF MERCED, et al., Case No. 1:92-cv-05627-JLT-SAB 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF CITY OF MERCED TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING v. WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A R A FIELDS INC., et al., COURT ORDER 14 Defendants. (ECF No. 1830)

APRIL 21, 2025 DEADLINE

On January 20, 2009, the Hon. Lawrence J. O’Neill entered an order requiring Plaintiff “City of Merced to file a status report no later than January 20, 2010, and every 12 months thereafter until this action is resolved.” (ECF No. 1797) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff’s 2024 status report did not indicate that this action had been resolved. (See ECF Nos. 1826, 1829.) On April 10, 2025, the Court ordered that Plaintiff file a status report by April 14, 2025. (ECF No. 1830.) Plaintiff failed to file such report or otherwise request an extension of time to do so. Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.