Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01097/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01097-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMOND SARKIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

YOLO COUNTY PUBLIC AGENCY 

RISK MANAGEMENT INSURANCE 

AUTHORITY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:21-cv-01097-TLN-JDP (PS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL 

RULES

ECF No. 21

On October 28, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion to strike defendants’ affirmative defenses. 

ECF No. 21. Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To date, defendants have filed neither an opposition nor a statement of 

non-opposition to plaintiff’s motion.1

1 On October 14, 2022, defendants attempted to amend their answer pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). ECF No. 25. That rule permits a party to amend its 

pleading within twenty-one days of service of a motion to strike “if the pleading is one to which a 

responsive pleading is required.” Fed. R. Civ. 15(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff was not required to respond 

to defendants’ answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(C). Consequently, defendants only had 

twenty-one days from the date they filed their answer to amend that answer as a matter of course. 

Defendants, however, waited approximately one month before attempting to amend. Since 

defendants were not permitted to amend their answer as a matter of course at that time, the 

amended answer, ECF No. 25, must be disregarded. Defendants are notified that if they wish to 

Case 2:21-cv-01097-TLN-JDP Document 26 Filed 11/28/22 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Defendants will be ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for their 

failure to timely respond to plaintiff’s motion. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a 

party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by 

the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of 

the Court.”). 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The December 15, 2022 hearing on plaintiff’s motion to strike is continued to January 

19, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 9.

2. By no later than January 5, 2023, defendants shall file an opposition or statement of 

non-opposition to plaintiff’s motion to strike. See ECF No. 21.

3. Defendants shall show cause, by no later than January 5, 2023, why sanctions should 

not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s

motion.

4. Plaintiff may file a reply to defendants’ opposition, if any, no later than January 12, 

2023. 

5. Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a 

recommendation that defendants’ answer be stricken and their default entered. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2022 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

amend their answer, they must obtain either plaintiff’s written consent or leave of court. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 

Case 2:21-cv-01097-TLN-JDP Document 26 Filed 11/28/22 Page 2 of 2