Sears

Sears v. City of Oroville

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 10, 20232:22-cv-01624California392 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Michael Sears, No. 2:22-cv-01624-KJM-KJN Plaintiff, ORDER v. City of Oroville, 1S Defendant. 16 Plaintiff Michael Sears brings this employment action against the City of Oroville. Compl., ECF No. 1. Oroville moves to dismiss two claims for failure to state a claim. Mot., ECF No. 7. In Oroville’s notice of motion, its counsel notes calling plaintiff's counsel requesting to meet and confer five days before filing, leaving a voicemail, and then following up by email with “a detailed description of each argument Defendant intended to raise.” /d. at 2. Plaintiff's 22 counsel never responded. /d. This court’s standing order requires attorneys to meet and confer with one another before 24 they file motions. See Standing Order at 3, ECF No. 3-1; Mollica v. County of Sacramento, No. 19-2017, 2022 WL 15053335, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2022). Attorneys who intend to…

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.