Gastelum v. Central Valley Hospitality LLC ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERNANDO GASTELUM, Case No. 1:21-cv-01079-JLT-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 13 v. TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST THE DOCKET TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 14 CENTRAL VALLEY HOSPITALITY, PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 (ECF Nos. 32, 33) 17 18 19 On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement. (ECF No. 30.) On August 23, 20 2022, the Court vacated all matters and ordered Plaintiff to file dispositional documents on or 21 before September 12, 2022. (ECF No. 31.) On September 13, 2022, the Court issued an order to 22 show cause why monetary sanctions should not issue for the failure to file the dispositional 23 documents. (ECF No. 32.) 24 In a response dated September 19, 2022, and docketed on September 23, 2022, Plaintiff 25 states the dispositional documents were not timely filed because he is pro se and not permitted to 26 file papers electronically; Plaintiff further proffers that counsel for Defendant would 27 electronically file the documents, but this was not done. (ECF No. 33.) Attached to Plaintiff’s 28 response to the order to show cause is a copy of the executed dispositional documents. (Id. at 4– 1 5.) The Court shall discharge the order to show cause. However, Plaintiff is advised that, since 2 | no counsel of record ever appeared in this matter, it is Plaintiff's responsibility to submit the 3 | dispositional documents. Plaintiff is further advised that, regardless of his pro se status, he is still 4 | required to timely comply with the Court’s orders and filing deadlines. See Scott v. Palmer, 689 5 | Fed. App’x 874, 874-75 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 6 | 1987)) (pro se litigants are held to same procedural rules as litigants with counsel). Thus, since 7 | Plaintiff is not permitted to electronically file documents, he is nonetheless expected to timely 8 | mail them pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules and this Court’s orders. 9 | Finally, acknowledging that Plaintiff is a frequent filed in this District, Plaintiff is further 10 | cautioned that failure to comply with filing deadlines and Court orders may result in the issuance 11 | of sanctions, including monetary sanctions and dismissal of the pending action. 12 Further, in light of the notice of dismissal (ECF No. 37), this action has been terminated, 13 | Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)Gi); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and 14 | has been dismissed with prejudice. 15 Accordingly, IS IT HEREBY ORDERED that the September 6, 2022 order to show cause 16 | (ECF No. 35) is DISCHARGED. Furthermore, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED 17 | to close the case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to 18 | Rule (a). 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 21 | Dated: _September 26, 2022 _ ef 0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28