Gomez v. ICANN, LLC
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-08024
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Gomez v. ICANN, Judge Tigar ordered the parties to explain missed deadlines and appear at a hearing about possible sanctions.
Andres Gomez, ICANN, LLC, and Plaintiff’s counsel were affected by the order requiring a written response and a hearing concerning the missed inspection deadline and possible sanctions.
What happened
In Gomez v. ICANN, Andres Gomez served ICANN, LLC with his complaint on December 9, 2021. The parties were required to complete a joint site inspection by February 7, 2022, but did not meet that deadline.
The court also noted that it had previously addressed Plaintiff’s counsel’s failures to comply with court deadlines. It ordered the parties to explain in writing by May 24, 2022, why sanctions should not be imposed.
Judge Jon S. Tigar scheduled a hearing for June 7, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. The order required explanations and set a hearing; it did not state that sanctions were imposed.
The detailed version
- Gomez v. ICANN, LLC · No. 4:21-cv-08024
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 12, 2022
Background
Andres Gomez served ICANN, LLC with the complaint on December 9, 2021. Under General Order 56, the parties were required to complete a joint site inspection by February 7, 2022. The court stated that the parties had not complied with that deadline.
The court also stated that it had already been required frequently to address Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to comply with court deadlines, and cited several other cases involving that issue.
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 court cited its authority to punish conduct that abuses the judicial process, including by awarding attorney’s fees in appropriate circumstances.
The court scheduled a show-cause hearing for June 7, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. The opinion does not state that sanctions were imposed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.