Jorge Gaxiola et al v. City of Los Angeles et al

Filing 55

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin. IT IS ORDERED THAT: Plaintiffs Ploucher and Bennington shall file with the court a Notice of Change of Address no later than January 5, 2011. Plaintiffs Ploucher's and Bennington' s failure to timely comply with this Order, or with their continuing obligation to keep the court apprised of a current mailing address, may result in their case being dismissed for failure to obey the orders of this court and/or for want of prosecution. (mr)

-FMO Jorge Gaxiola et al v. City of Los Angeles et al

Doc. 55

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 Contemporaneously with the filing of this Order, the court is issuing a Minute Order discharging the Order to Show Cause filed on December 3, 2010.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE GAXIOLA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NO. CV 10-6632 AHM (FMO)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On December 13, 2010, the Court's Order of December 8, 2010, addressed to plaintiff Richard Ploucher ("Ploucher"), was returned to the court undelivered and marked "Return To Sender Not at This Address." On December 14, 2010, the court's Case Management Order Re: Discovery and Pre-Trial Motions and Order to Show Cause, both filed on December 3, 2010, addressed to plaintiff Adrian Bennington ("Bennington"), were returned to the court undelivered and marked "No such [n]umber" and "Not at This Address."1 Pursuant to Local Rule 41-6, plaintiffs have an obligation to keep the court advised of a current address throughout the duration of their lawsuit. Plaintiffs are advised that their failure to comply with their continuing obligation to keep the court apprised of a current mailing address, and/or their failure to comply with a court order

Dockets.Justia.com

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

because they did not receive the order, could result in their case being dismissed for failure to obey the orders of this court and/or for want of prosecution. See Local Rule 41-6 ("If mail directed by the Clerk to a pro se plaintiff's address of record is returned undelivered by the Postal Service, and if, within fifteen (15) days of the service date, such plaintiff fails to notify, in writing, the Court and opposing parties of said plaintiff's current address, the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution.") (italics in original); (see also Court's Order of September 10, 2010, at II.2.) ("During the pendency of the action, plaintiffs must notify the court immediately if any of the plaintiffs' addresses change and must provide the court with the new address(es) and its effective date. Any failure by plaintiffs to comply with a court order where plaintiffs did not receive the order due to failure to inform the court of plaintiffs' current addresses may result in the action being dismissed for failure to prosecute.") (bold in original). Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiffs Ploucher and Bennington shall file with the court a Notice of Change of

Address no later than January 5, 2011. 2. Plaintiffs Ploucher's and Bennington's failure to timely comply with this Order,

or with their continuing obligation to keep the court apprised of a current mailing address, may result in their case being dismissed for failure to obey the orders of this court and/or for want of prosecution. Dated this 20th day of December, 2010.

/s/ Fernando M. Olguin United States Magistrate Judge

2