Jayantibhai Patel et al v. City of Long Beach et al
Filing
141
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. Based on the representations made in City's Status Report 134 regarding Plaintiffs' failure to engage in meaningful s ettlement efforts, and based on Plaintiffs' failure to file pretrial documents due June 30, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiffs TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than Friday July 14, 2017, why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff s' failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with Court-ordered deadlines. If Plaintiffs fail to respond to the OSC by the deadline the entire case will be dismissed, without further notice, for failure to prosecute and for failure to obey court orders. (iv)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.: CV 08-02806-AB (GJSx)
Title:
Date:
July 7, 2017
Jayantibhai Patel et al v. City of Long Beach et al.
Present: The Honorable
ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR., United States District Judge
Carla Badirian
Deputy Clerk
N/A
Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None Appearing
None Appearing
Proceedings:
[In Chambers] ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should
Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute
Based on the representations made in City’s Status Report (Dkt. No. 134) regarding
Plaintiffs’ failure to engage in meaningful settlement efforts, and based on Plaintiffs’
failure to file pretrial documents due June 30, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiffs TO
SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than Friday July 14, 2017, why this case should
not be dismissed for Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with
Court-ordered deadlines.
The sole remaining issue is Plaintiffs’ damages arising from City’s unlawful seizure.
This is a narrow issue. The ADR deadline was June 30. City’s Status Report states that
Plaintiffs have not responded meaningfully to City’s efforts to negotiate, and have not
provided a demand or otherwise responded to City’s Rule 68 offer, so no mediation has
occurred. The docket also reflects Plaintiff have not filed pretrial documents that were
due June 30. Under no circumstances will the Court allow this case to go to trial unless
the parties use their best efforts to resolve it, and unless Plaintiffs file the required pretrial
CV-90 (12/02)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
1
Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
documents. The Court is willing to allow the parties to attempt mediation after the
deadline, but the mediation must be conducted in good faith.
Based on the Status Report, and on the fact that City did file pretrial documents due
June 30, it appears that City has taken the responsibility for advancing the case while
Plaintiffs have failed in this regard. But this is Plaintiffs’ case, so Plaintiffs bear the
primary responsibility for ensuring it is ready for trial. If Plaintiffs wish to pursue their
claim, they must provide a demand to City, mediate, and file the necessary pretrial
documents.
To respond to this OSC, Plaintiffs must at a minimum:
1. respond to City’s claim that Plaintiffs have not meaningfully participated in
settlement efforts;
2. state whether they made a demand of City;
3. explain why they have not filed the pretrial documents due on June 30;
4. propose a new deadline for mediation;
5. indicate that they have a settlement conference scheduled with Magistrate Judge
Standish; and
6. propose whatever new deadlines are necessary.
Plaintiff must meet and confer with City on items 4-6. The Response must include
an appropriate Proposed Order to adjust deadlines.
If Plaintiffs fail to respond to the OSC by the deadline the entire case will be
dismissed, without further notice, for failure to prosecute and for failure to obey
court orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (12/02)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
2
Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
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?