Allied World National Assurance Co., et al. v. SK PM Corp. et al.

Filing 165

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Re Dismissal of Remaining Claims and Vacating July 10, 2014 Pretrial Conference, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/7/2014. (The Court ORDERS that: 1. The July 10, 2014 pretrial conference date is VACATED; 2. The parties shall file a joint pretrial conference statement on or before July 11, 2014, or show cause in writing why the remaining claims against the remaining Defendants should not be dismissed due to violations of the Courts scheduling order and Local Rules and/or the failure to diligently prosecute the case.)(Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

ALLIED WORLD NATIONAL ASSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

7
8
9
10

1:10-cv-1262-LJO-JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
DISMISSAL OF REMAINING CLAIMS
AND VACATING JULY 10, 2014
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

Plaintiffs,
v.
SK PM CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

11
12
On June 12, 2014, “in light of the parties’ continuing efforts to resolve all claims in this case,”
13
the Court rescheduled the pretrial conference for July 10, 2014. Doc. 163. As indicated in the Court’s
14
October 18, 2012 scheduling order, pursuant to Local Rule 281, Plaintiffs were required to file a pretrial
15
conference statement on or before June 26, 2014, Defendants were required to file a pretrial statement
16
on or before July 3, 2014, and the parties were required to file a joint pretrial statement on or before July
17
3, 2014. Doc. 103 at 5. To date, the parties have not filed any pretrial conference statements.
18
Consequently, the parties are in violation of the Court’s scheduling order and Local Rule 281.
19
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that:
20
1. The July 10, 2014 pretrial conference date is VACATED;
21
2. The parties shall file a joint pretrial conference statement on or before July 11, 2014, or show
22
cause in writing why the remaining claims against the remaining Defendants should not be
23
dismissed due to violations of the Court’s scheduling order and Local Rules and/or the failure
24
to diligently prosecute the case.
25
Failure to comply with this order may be grounds for dismissal. See Local Rule 110; Bautista v.
26
1

1

Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir.

2

1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with Local Rule).

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 7, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2