Marta Russell v. Shutters on the Beach et al

Filing 24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. Plaintiff TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Because her 30 days has expired, she is no longer permitted to file a motion for attorneys fees. No hearing will be held on this matter. This Order to Show Cause will be discharged upon the filing of a stipulation and proposed order of dismissal. A response from Plaintiff is required by September 24, 2013. Failure to timely respond will result in the dismissal of this case with prejudice. (lc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

MARTA RUSSELL,
v.

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:12-cv-7916-ODW(MRWx)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
LACK OF PROSECUTION

SHUTTERS ON THE BEACH, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

On August 14, 2013, the parties filed their Notice of Settlement and asked the

17

Court to vacate all remaining pretrial and trial dates. (ECF No. 22.) The parties

18

represented that they have reached a full settlement and expected to execute the

19

settlement within one week of the Notice. (Id. at 2.) Further, Plaintiff requested leave

20

to file a motion for attorney’s fees and costs within 30 days from the date of the

21

Court’s order vacating the remaining pretrial and trial dates. (Id.)

22

Based on these representations, on August 14, 2013, the Court vacated the

23

remaining pretrial and trial dates and allowed Plaintiff to file a motion for attorney’s

24

fees and costs within 30 days. (ECF No. 23.) Yet, more than 30 days has passed and

25

nothing has been filed.

26

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff TO SHOW CAUSE why

27

this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Because her 30 days has

28

expired, she is no longer permitted to file a motion for attorney’s fees. No hearing

1

will be held on this matter. This Order to Show Cause will be discharged upon the

2

filing of a stipulation and proposed order of dismissal. A response from Plaintiff is

3

required by September 24, 2013. Failure to timely respond will result in the dismissal

4

of this case with prejudice.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

September 20, 2013

7
8

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2