Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01435/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01435-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In response to the Court’s order to show cause issued to the plaintiffs for their failure to 

appear at the mid-discovery status conference, plaintiffs have retained new counsel and state an 

unawareness that they or their counsel were required to be present at the hearing. (Doc. 58 at 3-4) 

The Court finds this to be a reasonable explanation.

On the other hand, in the response to the order to show cause, new counsel also seeks a 

continuance of the motion to compel that was set to be heard on November 30, 2016 but was 

continued by the Court to December 20, 2016. (Doc. 51) Counsel requests the motion be re-set again 

to February 1. (Doc. 58 at 4) Counsel cites only “scheduling conflicts” in support for this need. Id.

Notably, this case was scheduled four months ago and there are only two months of discovery 

time remaining. (Doc. 35) The Court is confident that the plaintiffs’ new counsel was aware of this 

schedule when he agreed to take on this representation and must have felt that he could accomplish 

completing discovery within these deadlines or, of course, ethically, he would have been prohibited 

DHILLON SINGH, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

HANCOCK NATURAL RESOURCES 

GROUP, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01435 LJO JLT

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDERT TO SHOW 

CAUSE

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO CONTINUE

MOTION TO COMPEL

Case 1:15-cv-01435-LJO-JLT Document 60 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 2
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

from taking on this case. In any event, continuing the motion to dismiss until five days before the 

discovery deadline is not workable. Moreover, the plaintiffs have already stated their opposition to 

the motion, given their counsel’s participation in the preparation of the joint statement filed in 

connection with the motion.

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. The order to show cause issued to the plaintiffs is DISCHARGED;

2. The request to continue the hearing on the motion to dismiss is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01435-LJO-JLT Document 60 Filed 12/01/16 Page 2 of 2