Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01030/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01030-1/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CYNTHIA HOPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEOX CLOTHING AND SHOES, NEO 

CATS, INC., and JMJ BROTHERS 

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-1030-DAD-EPG

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO 

APPEAR

On July 3, 2015, Plaintiff Cynthia Hopson (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in this action. 

(ECF No. 1.) On November 17, 2015, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to correct 

deficiencies in the service of the Complaint and appear before the Court on January 20, 2016 at 

9:00 a.m. to discuss her efforts at service. (ECF No. 13.) The order further explained that, if 

Defendants had answered the Complaint before the date of the status conference, the status 

conference would be converted to a scheduling conference and the parties would be required to 

file a joint scheduling report in advance of the conference. (ECF No. 13.) 

Plaintiff failed to appear for the hearing and did not file any request for a continuance or 

otherwise notify the Court that she would not be able to appear at the conference. The Court then 

issued an Order to Show Cause based on Plaintiff’s failure to appear. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff has 

Case 1:15-cv-01030-DAD-EPG Document 20 Filed 02/01/16 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

now filed a response to the Order to Show Cause in the form of a declaration by Plaintiff’s 

counsel Daniel Malakauskas. (ECF No. 19.) Malakauskas explains that he removed the 

conference from his calendar in anticipation of a motion for default judgment that he was 

planning on filing. He did not file the motion, however, because he was contacted by Michael Yi, 

Defendants’ attorney. Malakauskas further explains that Yi requested an extension to respond to 

the Complaint. Neither Malakauskas nor Yi informed the Court of: (1) Yi’s appearance in the 

action; or (2) the request for an extension of time to answer the Complaint.

Plaintiff’s counsel is advised that compliance with court orders is not optional and that the 

failure to appear for a scheduled hearing or conference wastes judicial time and resources. 

Counsel is admonished that further violations of court rules or orders may result in the imposition 

of sanctions. 

Based on the foregoing, the Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 18) is DISCHARGED. 

Plaintiff’s counsel is DIRECTED to file, no later than February 5, 2016, a copy of any stipulation 

reached between the parties extending the time to respond to the Complaint in conformance with 

Local Rule 144. The Court further SETS a scheduling conference for March 24, 2016 at 10:00 

a.m. The parties shall file a joint scheduling report no later than March 17, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01030-DAD-EPG Document 20 Filed 02/01/16 Page 2 of 2