Ismailyan v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC

United States District Court for the Central District of California

Ismailyan v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC

Trial Court Opinion

Case 2:17-cv-07225-FMO-AGR Document 167 Filed 04/20/22 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:3429 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 17-7225 FMO (AGRx) Date April 20, 2022 Title Vram Ismailyan v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC

Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Gabriela Garcia None None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Re: Settlement Proceedings Pursuant to the Court’s Order of March 3, 2022, the parties were required to attend a settlement conference to resolve plaintiff’s motion for fees and costs by no later than April 14, 2022. (See Dkt. 166, Court’s Order of March 3, 2022). The parties were directed to “abide by the requirements set forth in the Court’s Order of January 4, 2022 (Dkt. 162).” (Id.). The Court’s Order of January 4, 2022, in turn, required the parties to file a “file a Status Report Re: Settlement” no later than 24 hours after the settlement proceeding. (Dkt. 162, Court’s Order of January 4, 2022, at 2). The Court’s Order of March 3, 2022, also admonished that “[t]he failure of any party or attorney to comply with the requirements of th[e] Order may result in sanctions being imposed.” (Dkt. 166). As of the filing date of this Order, neither a Status Report nor a Notice of Settlement has been filed. (See, generally, Dkt.). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT no later than April 25, 2022, the parties shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply with the Court’s Order of March 3, 2022. Failure to submit a response to this Order by the deadline set forth above shall result in the imposition of sanctions and/or denial of the pending motion for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co.,

370 U.S. 626, 629-30

,

82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388

(1962); Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

291 F.3d 639, 642

(9th Cir. 2002). A notice of settlement shall be deemed a satisfactory response to the order to show cause. 00 : 00 Initials of Preparer gga CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1

Reference

Status
Unknown