William J Verdult v. Ron G Bush et al

Filing 24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why Defendants' Motion to Dismiss should not be granted. Plaintiff is also ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not dismiss this action for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff's response to this order must be filed no later than Wednesday, October 14, 2014, at 4:00 p.m. An appropriate response to this order will include reasons demonstrating good cause for Plaintiff's failure to: (1) file an opposition to Defendants' motion, and (2) apprise the Court of his current address of record. (rfi)

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

CV 14-01176 (BRO) (DTBx)

Title

WILLIAM J. VERDULT V. RON G. BUSH, ET AL.

Date

October 7, 2014

Present: The Honorable

BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL, United States District Judge

Renee A. Fisher

Not Present

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO OPPOSE DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS AND FAILURE TO APPRISE THE COURT OF
CURRENT ADDRESS OF RECORD
Pending before the Court is Defendant James Frey and Defendant Odelyn Frey’s
(collectively, “Defendants”) joint Motion to Dismiss.1 (Dkt. No. 19.) After Defendants
filed the motion, the Court set a hearing date for October 27, 2014. (Dkt. No. 20.) Under
the Court’s Local Rule 7-9, a party must oppose a motion at least 21 days prior to the
scheduled hearing date. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s opposition to
Defendants’ motion was due no later than October 6, 2014. As of today, Plaintiff has not
filed an opposition. Pursuant to the Court’s Local Rule 7-12, failure to file an opposition
“may be deemed consent to the granting . . . of the motion.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12.
Moreover, under Local Rule 41-6, “[a] party proceeding pro se shall keep the
Court and opposing parties apprised of such party’s current address and telephone
number, if any, and e-mail address, if any.” C. D. Cal. L. R. 41-6. Plaintiff is proceeding
pro se in this matter. The Complaint indicates Plaintiff’s address is P.O. Box 142, Palm
Springs, California, 92263. (Dkt. No. 3.) On July 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for

1

Defendants are proceeding pro se in this matter and purport to file the motion on behalf of two other
named defendants, Tyche Acquisitions Group, Inc. and Tyche Art International, Inc. (See Dkt. No. 19 at
1.) As explained in the Court’s previous order granting Defendant Bush’s motion to dismiss (see Dkt.
No. 18), the Court’s Local Rule 83-2.2.2 provides that “[o]nly individuals may represent themselves pro
se. No organization or entity of any other kind . . . may appear in any action or proceeding unless
represented by an attorney permitted to practice before this Court under L.R. 83-2.1.” Accordingly, the
Court will consider Defendants’ motion to be filed only on behalf of James Frey and Odelyn Frey.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 14-01176 (BRO) (DTBx)

Title

WILLIAM J. VERDULT V. RON G. BUSH, ET AL.

Date

October 7, 2014

default judgment indicating his address is 44 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert,
California, 92260. (Dkt. No. 11.) Given this discrepancy, Plaintiff must apprise the
Court and all defendants in this matter of his current address.
Local Rule 41-6 also provides for dismissal of an action where a pro se plaintiff
fails to apprise the Court of his or her address of record:
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.
C. D. Cal. L. R. 41-6. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Clerk directed various
orders and notices to Plaintiff’s Palm Springs address. Several of these documents
have been returned undelivered. (See Dkt. Nos. 22, 23.) As of this date, Plaintiff
has not timely notified the Court of his current address in accordance with Local
Rule 41-6.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss should not be granted. Plaintiff is also ORDERED TO SHOW
CAUSE why the Court should not dismiss this action for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff’s
response to this order must be filed no later than Wednesday, October 14, 2014, at
4:00 p.m. An appropriate response to this order will include reasons demonstrating good
cause for Plaintiff’s failure to: (1) file an opposition to Defendants’ motion, and (2)
apprise the Court of his current address of record.
CC: William J. Verdult
44 Country Club Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

rf

Page 2 of 2