Komar

Project Sentinel v. Komar

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 9, 20191:19-cv-00708California1,822 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

26 On May 5, 2019, Plaintiff, Project Sentinel, filed this action against Defendants, Meyer 27 Komar, Jeanette Komar, and Sarah Komar. (ECF No. 1.) In the Order Setting Mandatory 28 Scheduling Conference, entered on May 21, 2019, the Court set an initial scheduling conference for September 10, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. (ECF No. 3-1.) The parties were instructed that attendance at the scheduling conference was mandatory. (Id. at 2 (“Attendance at the Scheduling Conference is mandatory for all parties. Parties may appear by their counsel, if represented. If a party is not represented by counsel, they must appear personally at the Scheduling Conference.”).) The parties were also advised: “Should counsel or a party appearing pro se fail to appear at the Mandatory Scheduling Conference . . . contempt sanctions, including monetary sanctions, dismissal, default, or other appropriate judgment, may be imposed and/or ordered.” (Id. at 7.) The parties were also provided instructions on how to attend the scheduling conference. (Id. at 1, 2.) On July 2, 2019, summons for Defendants were returned executed. (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6.) The return 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.