Summary
finding service sufficient even without effectuating in-person service when the plaintiff made three in-person service attempts at the defendant's home, that plaintiff noted that the defendant's car was parked in the driveway, the plaintiff was sent away on one occasion by the defendant, and the plaintiff finally left the summons and complaint behind the screen door on the defendant's porch
Summary of this case from Floyd v. Saratoga Diagnostics, Inc.Opinion
CV 10-10039 DSF (FMOx)
11-07-2011
Antelope Valley Allied Arts Association, et al. v. Lancaster Redevelopment Agency, et al
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Not Present Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present
MEMORANDUM
DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge
Debra Plato
Deputy Clerk
Not Present
Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Not Present
Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause re Sanctions
On September 26, 2011, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's counterclaims. (Docket No. 103.) Oral argument was scheduled for Monday, November 7, 2011. The motion and accompanying Declaration of David C. Palmer recite Defendants' numerous (unsuccessful) efforts to convince Plaintiff to dismiss its counterclaims. Plaintiff's counsel filed an Opposition that failed directly to address claims two through five, but did not specifically note that Plaintiff did not oppose dismissal of those claims. On Friday afternoon, November 4, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of four of their five counterclaims. (Docket No. 138.) Thus, it appears that had Plaintiffs' counsel met and conferred in good faith as required by Local Rule 7-3 and this Court's Standing Order, and advised the Court that claims two through five were no longer at issue, or agreed to stipulate to dismissal of those four claims, the Court would have been saved significant effort and could have directed its time and attention to matters of other parties with legitimate disputes. This obviously is the purpose of Rule 7-3.
The Court orders Plaintiff's counsel to show cause in writing on or before November 21, 2011 why sanctions in the amount of $250.00 payable to the Clerk of the Court should not issue for counsel's failure to meet and confer in good faith, notify the Court of Plaintiff's non-opposition, and for its extreme delay in filing the (ultimately ineffective) request for dismissal.
The Court notes that Mr. Landsgaard failed to appear for the hearing on this matter
MEMORANDUM
due to being ordered to remain in state court on another matter. No explanation was given for why Ms. Echegary, also counsel of record for Plaintiff, failed to appear. If Ms. Echegary no longer wishes to represent Plaintiff, she must seek the Court's permission to withdraw.
IT IS SO ORDERED.