Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00681/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00681-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK MUNNS, CHRISTA MUNNS,

Administrators for the

separate Estate of 

JOSHUA MUNNS, DENNIS

DEBRABANDER, SHARON

DEBRABANDER, Administrators

for the separate Estate of

JOHN YOUNG and LORI SILVERI,

Administrator for the separate

Estate of JOHN COTE,

On behalf of themselves as

individuals and as taxpeyers,

NO. CIV. S-10-681 LKK/KJM

Plaintiffs,

v.

O R D E R

HILLARY DIANE RODHAM CLINTON,

in her official capacity as

UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF

STATE; JENNIFER FOO, in her

official capacity,

Defendants.

 /

On May 27, 2010, this court ordered counsel for plaintiffs to

show cause why sanctions should not issue for counsel’s failure to

file a status report prior to the scheduled May 24, 2010 status

Case 2:10-cv-00681-MCE-EFB Document 9 Filed 06/22/10 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

2

(pretrial scheduling) conference. Court records indicate that the

court’s March 22, 2010 order setting a status conference was

electronically served to plaintiffs’ counsel at the following email

addresses: wpalmer@palmercorp.com, dculhane@dim.com,

achernyy@palmercorp.com. However, plaintiffs’ counsel has declared

under penalty of perjury that he “did not receive any notice (mail

or email) of the May 24, 2010 hearing.” Because defendants had not

yet been served, no defendants were prejudiced by plaintiff’s

failure to file a status report. Plaintiffs’ counsel is cautioned

that he is expected to monitor the docket in this case and to

ensure that his email program is functioning properly. Nonetheless,

plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration under penalty of perjury

constitutes good cause. Thus, the court finds that no sanction is

appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 22, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00681-MCE-EFB Document 9 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 2