Laurino v. United States Postal Service ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARICELA LAURINO, Case No. 1:18-cv-00636-JLT-SAB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 12 TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST THE v. DOCKET TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY 13 DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL 14 PROCEDURE Defendant. 15 ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 16 (ECF Nos. 80, 83, 84, 85) 17 18 This consolidated action proceeded with two sets of Plaintiffs against Defendant United 19 States of America. A settlement conference was held on May 23, 2022, before Magistrate Judge 20 Carolyn Delaney, at which the parties reached a settlement agreement and were to file 21 dispositional documents within thirty days. (ECF No. 79.) On June 24, 2022, Maricela Laurino, 22 Irma Jurado, Vivian Jurado, and Yvette Jurado (the “Laurino Plaintiffs”) filed a stipulation of 23 dismissal as to their claims against Defendant. (ECF No. 80.) On the same date, Defendant 24 United States filed an ex parte request for a fifteen (15) day extension of time to file 25 dispositional documents as to the claims asserted by Patricia Jurado, Joel Jurado, and Manuel 26 Jurado, Jr. (the “Jurado Plaintiffs”). (ECF No. 81.) 27 On June 27, 2022, Magistrate Judge Delaney granted the request for an extension of time to file dispositional documents until July 8, 2022. (ECF No. 82.) On June 28, 2022, the Court 1 | issued an order entering the stipulated dismissal of the Laurino Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 83.) The 2 | Court also ordered the Jurado Plaintiffs to show cause in writing why monetary sanctions should 3 | not issue for the failure to file dispositional documents by the deadline to do so. Ud.) On June 4 | 29, 2022, a stipulation of dismissal of the claims between the Jurado Plaintiffs and Defendant 5 | was filed, and on June 30, 2022, a declaration of the Jurado Plaintiff's counsel was filed in 6 | response to the order to show cause. (ECF Nos. 84, 85.) Counsel’s declaration explains the 7 | delay in the settlement agreement going through the firm’s auditing process; an overlapping 8 | complex trial; and impleads the Court not to impose sanctions against his clients but rather 9 | against counsel, and impleads such sanctions be below $1,000. (ECF No. 85.) 10 Based on the counsel’s declaration, the Court finds no need to impose monetary 11 | sanctions. Further, in light of the fact that all parties have now stipulated to the dismissal of this 12 | action, this action has been terminated, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)Gi); Wilson v. City of San 13 | Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been dismissed with prejudice and without an 14 | award of costs or attorneys’ fees. The Court shall close this action. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the file in this case and adjust 17 the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a); and 18 2. The June 28, 2022 order to show cause issued as to Plaintiffs Patricia Jurado, Joel 19 Jurado, and Manuel Jurado, Jr. ECF No. 83), is DISCHARGED. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 22 | Dated: _ June 30, 2022 _ Of 33 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28