Garcia v. Yvette Properties, Inc.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-04988
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Garcia v. Yvette Properties, Judge Tigar ordered written explanations about missed inspection deadlines and scheduled a sanctions hearing.
Orlando Garcia, Yvette Properties, Inc., and Plaintiff’s counsel, who were required to address the missed inspection deadline.
What happened
In Garcia v. Yvette Properties, Inc., the parties missed a court-ordered deadline for a joint site inspection. They asked for another extension nearly a month after the extended deadline had passed.
The court ordered the parties to explain in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for failing to follow the court’s orders. The court did not impose sanctions in this order.
Judge Tigar set a show-cause hearing for June 7, 2022, and required the written explanations by May 24, 2022.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. Yvette Properties, Inc. · No. 4:21-cv-04988
- Jon Tigar
- Mar. 22, 2022
Background
Orlando Garcia served his complaint on Yvette Properties, Inc. on September 10, 2021. The parties requested, and the court granted, an extension of the deadline for their joint site inspection to February 23, 2022.
The parties did not meet that deadline. On March 21, 2022—nearly one month after the extended deadline—they asked for another extension. The court also noted that it had previously addressed failures by Plaintiff’s counsel to comply with court deadlines in other cases.
Order
The court ordered the parties to show cause in writing by May 24, 2022, why sanctions should not be imposed for failing to comply with the court’s orders. “Show cause” means explaining why the court should not take the proposed action. The order cited the court’s local rules and its inherent power to address conduct that abuses the judicial process.
The court scheduled a show-cause hearing for June 7, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. This order did not itself impose sanctions.
Disposition
Judge Jon S. Tigar issued an order to show cause and scheduled a hearing; the opinion does not state any later sanctions ruling.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.