United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2023

Sears v. City of Oroville

Sears v. City of Oroville
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided February 10, 2023
Sears v. City of Oroville

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 Michael Sears, No. 2:22-cv-01624-KJM-KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. City of Oroville, 1S Defendant.

17 Plaintiff Michael Sears brings this employment action against the City of Oroville.

18 | 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 | counsel never responded. /d.

23 This court’s standing order requires attorneys to meet and confer with one another before | 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 file | motions must “discuss thoroughly the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential | resolution.” /d. “Counsel should discuss the issues sufficiently so that if a motion of any kind is | filed... the briefing is directed only to those substantive issues requiring resolution by the court.”

2 | dd.

3 With respect to the motion pending in this case, the court acknowledges the defense’s | exhaustion of meet and confer, notwithstanding plaintiff's non-responsiveness. The court is not | willing to excuse plaintiff's non-compliance with its standing order. “Meeting and conferring | saves time and money for all involved—if done correctly. Productive discussions spare both the | moving and opposing party the time they would otherwise have devoted to writing unnecessary or | ineffective arguments.” Mollica, 2022 WL 15053335, at *1. For these reasons, plaintiffs | counsel is ordered to show cause why monetary sanctions of $250 should not be imposed for | failure to meet and confer with defense counsel in compliance with this court’s standing | order. Plaintiff's counsel must show cause within seven (7) days of the filing date of this order.

12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 DATED: February 9, 2023.

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.