Cynthia A Ziemer v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage et al

Filing 38

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Gary A. Feess. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 11/26/2013. Over one month has now passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff must file a response to this Order by the close of business on Tuesday, November 26, 2013. Failure to respond will be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action. See document for details. (smo)

LINK: 37
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-02609 GAF (RZx)

Title

Cynthia Ziemer v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

November 8, 2013

GARY ALLEN FEESS

Stephen Montes Kerr
Deputy Clerk

None
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

(In Chambers)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: LACK OF PROSECUTION

On October 4, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss each of the claims
made by Plaintiff in her Second Amended Complaint.1 (Docket No. 36 [10/4/2013 Order].)
However, the Court also permitted Plaintiff leave to amend her pleading in order to cure its
defects. (Id. at 10.)
Over one month has now passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed
for lack of prosecution. See Werren v. Royal Trustco (In re Werren), 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS
24543, at *7 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 1995) (reaffirming the “inherent authority of a trial court to
dismiss an action sua sponte for lack of prosecution.”) (citing Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S.
626, 630–631 (1962). Plaintiff must file a response to this Order by the close of business on
Tuesday, November 26, 2013. Failure to respond will be deemed consent to the dismissal of
the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff captioned this pleading as her First Amended Complaint. [Docket No. 28
[First Amended Compl.].) However, the record reflects that it was in fact her Second Amended Complaint. The
confusion apparently stems from the fact that the initial complaint was filed in a state court, and when Plaintiff
amended her pleadings for the first time before this Court, she captioned the amendment improperly as a
“Verified Complaint,” rather than as a “First Amended Complaint.” (Docket No. 22 [Verified Complaint].)
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 1