Marivel Valdez v. Centennial Leasing LLC

Filing 23

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE re 20 by Judge Otis D Wright, II. Accordingly, pursuant to the Court's March 20, 2012 Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff's case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Should Plaintiff choose to re-fi le her Complaint in pro se, the Court advises Plaintiff re: Federal Pro Se Clinic. The Federal Pro Se Clinic offers on-site information and guidance to individuals who are representing themselves in federal civil actions. (see attached document for details.) (lom)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARIVEL VALDEZ,

12
13

v.

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:11-cv-10359-ODW(AJWx)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

CENTENNIAL LEASING LLC,

14

Defendant.

15
16

On March 20, 2012, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this action

17

should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and for Plaintiff Marivel Valdez’s

18

failure to comply with the Court’s January 23, 2012 Order Setting Scheduling

19

Conference. (Dkt. No. 20.) Specifically, the Court noted that Plaintiff had failed to

20

(1) serve Defendant Centennial Leasing LLC with a copy of the Court’s January 23,

21

2012 Order Setting Scheduling Conference; (2) contact Centennial to schedule the

22

meeting of counsel on or before March 12, 2012; and (3) participate whatsoever in

23

aiding Centennial to prepare a jointly signed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)

24

report to be filed on or before March 19, 2012. (Id.) As a result, the Court ordered

25

Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than March 26, 2012, why this action should

26

not be dismissed for failure to prosecute her case and to comply with the Court’s

27

January 23, 2012 Order. (Id.)

28

///

1

As of March 27, 2012, the Court has received no writing demonstrating to the

2

Court any reason why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and

3

failure to comply with the Court’s Order. While the Court notes that on March 23,

4

2012, Plaintiff filed a document titled, “Scheduling Meeting of Counsel Set for April

5

2, 2012 1:30 p.m.” (Dkt. No. 21), this document in no way addresses Plaintiff’s March

6

20, 2012 Order to Show Cause.

7

The Court recognizes that Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro se;

8

however, Plaintiff’s pro se status does not absolve her of her responsibility to comply

9

fully with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any orders issued by this Court. To

10

date, Plaintiff has been informed twice—once in the Court’s January 23, 2012 Order

11

Setting Scheduling Conference and again in the Court’s March 20, 2012 Order to

12

Show Cause—of her responsibility to participate in the preparation of a jointly signed

13

Rule 26(f) report. Plaintiff has neither undertaken this responsibility nor provided the

14

Court with any justification for her complete absence in the Rule 26(f) process.

15

Accordingly, pursuant to the Court’s March 20, 2012 Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff’s

16

case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

17

Should Plaintiff choose to re-file her Complaint in pro se, the Court advises

18

Plaintiff that a Federal Pro Se Clinic is located in the United States Courthouse at 312

19

N. Spring Street, Room 525, Fifth Floor, Los Angeles, California 90012. The clinic is

20

open for appointments on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 9:30 a.m to 12:00

21

p.m. and from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The Federal Pro Se Clinic offers on-site

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

2

1

information and guidance to individuals who are representing themselves in federal

2

civil actions.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

March 27, 2012

7
8
9

____________________________________
HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3