Arroyo, Jr. v. Quach, Inc.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-08778
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Arroyo v. Quach, Judge Tigar ordered both sides to explain why sanctions should not follow their missed site-inspection deadline.
The order directly affected Plaintiff Rafael Arroyo, Jr. and Defendant Quach, Inc., who were required to respond to the show-cause order; it also concerned the plaintiff’s counsel’s compliance with court deadlines.
What happened
In Arroyo, Jr. v. Quach, Inc., the parties were required to complete a joint site inspection by February 24, 2022, but did not meet that deadline. They instead asked on March 9 to skip the inspection.
The court ordered the parties to explain in writing by May 24 why sanctions should not be imposed for failing to follow the court’s orders. The court also scheduled a hearing for June 7, 2022.
Judge Jon S. Tigar issued the order and noted that the court had repeatedly addressed the plaintiff’s counsel’s failures to meet court deadlines.
The detailed version
- Arroyo, Jr. v. Quach, Inc. · No. 4:21-cv-08778
- Jon Tigar
- Mar. 15, 2022
Background
Plaintiff Rafael Arroyo, Jr. served his complaint on Defendant Quach, Inc. on December 26, 2021. Under General Order 56, the parties were required to complete a joint site inspection by February 24, 2022. They did not meet that deadline and instead filed a request on March 9, 2022, to forgo the inspection.
The court stated that it had frequently addressed plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to comply with court deadlines in other cases.
Order
The court ordered the parties to show cause—in other words, to explain in writing—by May 24, 2022, why sanctions should not be imposed for failing to comply with the court’s orders. The court cited its local rules and the court’s inherent authority to punish conduct that abuses the judicial process. The order did not state that sanctions had already been imposed.
The court scheduled a show-cause hearing for June 7, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. Judge Jon S. Tigar issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.