In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation

Filing 178

ORDER to Show Cause Why Case No. 5:12-CV-01262-LHK Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 7/23/2012. (lhklc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2012) Modified on 7/23/2012 (lhklc1S, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 SAN JOSE DIVISION OSSIE SANTIAGO, an individual California resident, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, INTUIT, INC., a Delaware corporation; GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 5:12-CV-01262-LHK ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Plaintiff Ossie Santiago filed a complaint against Intuit, Inc. (“Intuit ), Google, Inc. 19 (“Google”), and Does 1 through 100, inclusive (collectively “Defendants”) on March 14, 2012. See 20 ECF No. 1. On April 20, 2012, the case was reassigned to the undersigned judge. ECF No. 6. On 21 April 25, 2012, the Court related the above captioned case to In re: High Tech Employee Antitrust 22 Litigation, 11-CV-2509-LHK. ECF No. 11. On April 25, 2012, Intuit filed a motion to compel 23 arbitration and to dismiss, or in the alternative stay proceedings. ECF No. 8. Pursuant to Civil 24 Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition to Intuit’s motion was due on May 9, 2012. On June 1, 25 2012, Google filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 26 Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition to 27 Google’s motion was due on June 15, 2012. On June 22, 2012, Google filed a notice Plaintiff’s 28 1 Case No.: 12-CV-01262-LHK ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 1 non-opposition to Google’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to 2 either Google’s or Intuit’s motions, even though the deadline to oppose both motions has passed. 3 The hearing on Google’s and Intuit’s motions and the case management conference set for 4 September 13, 2012, are VACATED. The Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this 5 case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. This Order does not authorize Plaintiff to file 6 an untimely opposition to Defendants’ motions. Plaintiff has until August 13, 2012, to file a 7 response to this Order to Show Cause. A hearing on this Order to Show Cause is set for August 8 30, 2012, at 1:30 P.M. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause and to appear at 9 the August 30, 2012 hearing will result in dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: July 23, 2012 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case No.: 12-CV-01262-LHK ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE