Politis Family LLC v. The Pep Boys Manny Moe and Jack of California et al

Filing 47

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SANCTIONS AND DISMISSAL by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 10/17/2016. (vdr)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 16-1030 FMO (JCx) Title Politis Family LLC v. The Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California, et al. Present: The Honorable Date October 14, 2016 Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Vanessa Figueroa None Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None Present None Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions and Dismissal On September 16, 2016, defendant The Pep Boys Manny Moe and Jack of California (“Pep Boys”) filed a Motion to Strike (Dkt. 38) and a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 39) (collectively, the “Motions”) directed toward plaintiff Politis Family LLC’s (“plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 35). Plaintiff failed to timely file Oppositions to the Motions by the September 29, 2016, deadline. (See Dkt. 45, Court’s Order of October 7, 2016, at 1). On October 5, 2016, six days after plaintiff’s Opposition deadline had expired, the parties filed a Stipulation to File Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 41, “Stipulation”), in which plaintiff agreed to amend his complaint to address the issues raised in Pep Boys’ Motions. In response to the Stipulation, the court denied the Motions as moot and ordered that plaintiff file its proposed Second Amended Complaint no later than October 11, 2016. (See Dkt. 45, Court’s Order of October 7, 2016, at 1-2). As of the filing date of this order, plaintiff has not filed his Second Amended Complaint. (See Dkt. 46, Notice of Non-Receipt of Second Amended Complaint; see, generally, Dkt.). The court notes that this is the third time plaintiff has failed to comply with a deadline of this court. (See Dkt. 33, Court’s Order of August 5, 2016, at 1) (granting Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in part because plaintiff failed to file an Opposition by the July 28, 2016, deadline). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, no later than Monday, October 17, 2016, plaintiff shall show cause in writing why the court should not impose sanctions and dismiss this case for lack of prosecution due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order of October 7, 2016, and the court’s other deadlines. The filing of the Second Amended Complaint shall be deemed a satisfactory response to this Order. Failure to submit a response to this Order by the deadline set forth above may result in the imposition of sanctions and/or dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 909 (2003). Initials of Preparer CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL vdr Page 1 of 1

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?