Mina Farah v. Mamdoh Bastorous et al

Filing 27

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFFS PRESUMABLE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURTS ORDER 26 AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE by Judge David O. Carter. the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAU SE on or before November 27, 2017, why the Court should not dismiss this case for: (1) Plaintiffs presumable failure to comply with the Courts Order to inform the Court within three days of Suojanens suspension being lifted; and (2) for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute this case.If the Court receives no response from Plaintiff, the case will be dismissed. (see order for further details) (es)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. SA CV 17-1135-DOC (KESx)

Date: November 22, 2017

Title: MINA FARAH V. MAMDOH BASTOROUS, ET AL.

PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
Deborah Lewman
Courtroom Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFF:
None Present

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANT:
None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S
PRESUMABLE FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THIS COURT’S
ORDER [26] AND FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
On October 2, 2017, Plaintiff Mina Farah (“Plaintiff”) filed a Notice of
Suspension of Plaintiff’s counsel, Wayne W. Suojanen (“Suojanen”), from practice of
law in California, effective September 1, 2017 (Dkt. 25). On October 4, 2014, the Court
issued an Order staying the present case for forty-five days, until November 17, 2017,
and denying without prejudice Defendant Marian Bishay’s Motion to Dismiss, for the
purposes of the stay. Stay Order (Dkt. 26). The Court also ordered Plaintiff, inter alia, to
inform the Court within three days after Suojanen’s suspension is lifted, so that the stay
in this matter can be lifted. Id. at 1. The Court received no response from Plaintiff.
The Court may take judicial notice on its own motion. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(1)
(The Court “may take judicial notice on its own.”). The Court may take judicial of
documents available on a government agency’s website. Gustavson v. Wrigley Sales Co.,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 17-1135-DOC (KESx)

Date: November 22, 2017
Page 2

961 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1113 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 2013). The Court hereby takes judicial notice
of the State Bar of California’s Attorney Search webpage for Plaintiff’s counsel, Wayne
W. Suojanen. Attorney Search, Wayne William Suojanen, State Bar of California
(November 22, 2017, 3:38 PM), http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/
Detail/193627. This webpage indicates that Suojanen’s bar status became active again on
October 24, 2017. Id.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE on or before
November 27, 2017, why the Court should not dismiss this case for: (1) Plaintiff’s
presumable failure to comply with the Court’s Order to inform the Court within three
days of Suojanen’s suspension being lifted; and (2) for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this
case.
If the Court receives no response from Plaintiff, the case will be dismissed.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties.
Initials of Deputy Clerk: djg
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN