SWECO Products, Inc. v. Sutter Equipment Company, Inc.
||SWECO Products Inc
||Sutter Equipment Company, Inc.
||August 22, 2011
||California Eastern District Court
||Edmund F. Brennan
||Kimberly J. Mueller
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|January 11, 2012
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/10/2012 ORDERING that on 12/20/2011, the court ordered defendant's counsel to show cause, within fourteen days, why sanctions should not be imposed against him or his client for failure to file a re sponsive pleading. (ECF 8 .) Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case on 12/22/2011. (ECF 9 .) Reading between the lines, as it should not have to do, the court gathers that plaintiff did not file the dismissal as promptly as defense counsel anticipated. The best practice would have been to advise the court once the deadline passed for responding to the complaint. Nevertheless, in light of dismissal of the case, the 8 order to show cause is DISCHARGED. (Zignago, K.)
|December 20, 2011
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/20/11 ORDERING that within 14 days, counsel for defendant to file and serve a response to the complaint and SHOW CAUSE why sanctions should not be imposed against him or his client for failure to file a responsive pleading. The 01/04/12 status (pretrial scheduling) conference is VACATED and will be reset upon the court's receipt of defendant's response to this order. (Benson, A.)
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.