United States of America v. Thomas
Filing
19
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/29/2011 ORDERING that on or before 12/8/2011, Mr. Axup shall show good cause in writing: (1) why he failed to file a supplemental response to the Application on defendant's b ehalf; (2) why monetary sanctions should not be imposed on him personally; and (3) why the Application should not be summarily granted. Mr. Axup's failure to respond to this order shall provide additional grounds for the imposition of monetary sanctions on him personally. (Zignago, K.)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
No. 2:11-mc-00064 LKK KJN
v.
PATRICIA K. THOMAS,
14
Defendant and
Judgment Debtor.
15
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
/
16
Presently before the court is plaintiff’s amended application for a writ of
17
continuing garnishment (“Application”), seeking the garnishment of 70% of defendant’s
18
disposable earnings in furtherance of the payment of a criminal restitution balance in the amount
19
of $1,860,660.43 (which includes interest as of October 6, 2011).1 The court heard this matter on
20
its law and motion calendar on November 10, 2011.
21
At the hearing, defendant’s counsel, Mark S. Axup, requested leave to file a
22
supplemental response to the Application. At no point prior to the November 10, 2011 hearing
23
did Mr. Axup advise the court that he wished to file a supplemental response to plaintiff’s
24
25
26
1
This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local
Rule 302(c)(7) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The related criminal action is United States v. Thomas,
2:02-cr-00152 LKK-1 (E.D. Cal.).
1
1
Application.2 Nevertheless, the court permitted defendant to file a supplemental response to the
2
Application no later than November 25, 2011. (Order, Nov. 14, 2011, Dkt. No. 18.)
3
The court’s docket reflects that defendant failed to file a supplemental response to
4
the Application. Without more from defendant, the court is left to speculate as to whether Mr.
5
Axup’s request for leave to file a supplemental response was simply in furtherance of delaying
6
resolution of the Application.
7
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
8
1.
9
On or before December 8, 2011, Mr. Axup shall show good cause in
writing: (1) why he failed to file a supplemental response to the Application on defendant’s
10
behalf; (2) why monetary sanctions should not be imposed on him personally; and (3) why the
11
Application should not be summarily granted.
12
13
2.
grounds for the imposition of monetary sanctions on him personally.
14
15
Mr. Axup’s failure to respond to this order shall provide additional
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 29, 2011
16
17
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
Mr. Axup appeared in this action on October 17, 2011 (Dkt. No. 15).
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
