Garcia

Garcia v. Kim

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 22, 20223:21-cv-09789California281 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORLANDO GARCIA, Case No. 21-cv-09789-AGT

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

v. MOTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE

RELIEF

JONGGAN KIM, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 19, 30 Defendants.

Jonggan Kim hasn’t complied with General Order 56, which requires him to participate in a settlement meeting (GO 56 ¶ 8) and to serve initial disclosures beforehand (GO 56 ¶ 4). See Dkt 7 (scheduling order adopting GO 56). By September 5, 2022, Kim must serve his initial disclosures and provide plaintiff’s counsel with three dates on which he is available to conduct a settlement meeting. All three dates must be before September 27, 2022.1 Failure to comply with this order or with General Order 56 may result in sanctions. Sanctions won’t be imposed now. Kim is one of three defendants. The other two haven’t entered an appearance, and the Clerk has entered default as to one of them. See Dkt. 12. Because all parties haven’t appeared and con- sented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, the undersigned can’t rule on any dispositive motions or preside at trial. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500,…

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.