Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01336/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01336-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On December 19, 2013, the Court held an Initial Scheduling Conference. (Doc. 18.) Counsel 

Tanya Moore appeared telephonically on behalf of Plaintiff. Defendant Ravinder Singh appeared

telephonically in pro per. Counsel Frank Chimienti appeared telephonically as an interpreter for 

Ravinder Singh. However, he informed the Court he was not Ravinder Singh’s counsel of record in 

this case. Defendants Paramjit Singh and Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. did not appear. 

On December 23, 2013, the Court issued a Scheduling Conference Order containing case 

management dates. (Doc. 20.) That same day, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause to Defendant 

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., for its failure to appear at the Scheduling Conference. (Doc. 19.) The Court 

attempted to serve the Scheduling Order and Order to Show Cause on Defendants Ravinder Singh and 

Paramjit Singh, however, those orders were returned as undeliverable because the addresses listed with the 

Court for these Defendants was not accurate.

RONALD MOORE,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., et al.

Defendants.

/

Case No. 1: 13-cv-01336-LJO-BAM

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO 

PARAMJIT SINGH AND RAVINDER 

SINGH

Case 1:13-cv-01336-LJO-BAM Document 23 Filed 01/16/14 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

Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), “[e]ach appearing attorney and pro se party is under a continuing 

duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address or telephone number of the 

attorney or the pro se party.” Local Rule 183(a) further provides that “[a]ll obligations placed on 

‘counsel’ by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria persona. Failure to comply therewith 

may be ground for dismissal, judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules.”1

Defendants Ravinder Singh and Paramjit Singh are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, on 

or before January 31, 2014, why this Court should not strike their Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint and 

enter default against them for failure to maintain a current address with the Court. See, Thompson v. 

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.1986) (“District courts have inherent power to control their 

dockets. In the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default 

or dismissal.”) 

The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to serve this Order on Defendants Ravinder Singh and 

Paramjit Singh at both of the following addresses:

5706 W. Shields Avenue 

Fresno, CA 93722; 

Chimienti Law Firm, a P.C.

PO Box 1991

Camarillo, CA 93011

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Local Rule 183(b) provides that “[a] party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and 

opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by 

the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing 

parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action 

without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” 

Case 1:13-cv-01336-LJO-BAM Document 23 Filed 01/16/14 Page 2 of 2