Glass v. Remondi

Filing 9

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/30/2017. (Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing by Friday, 4/28/2017, why sanctions should not be imposed due to his failure to comply with the court's 2/21/2017 order.) (Thorp, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES L. GLASS, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:17-cv-00003-DAD-BAM

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC.,

15

Defendant.

16
On February 21, 2017, the court issued an order granting defendant John F. Remondi’s

17
18

motion to dismiss and granting Navient Solutions, Inc.’ motion to intervene as the proper

19

defendant in the matter. (Doc. No. 8.) In that order, the court directed plaintiff to file an

20

amended complaint or, alternatively, to voluntarily dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rule of

21

Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). (Id. at 5.) The court noted that “[a]t the hearing on this motion counsel

22

for Mr. Remondi and NSI reported that plaintiff had recently filed a notice of dismissal in the

23

Kern County Superior Court where this action had been pending prior to its removal to this court

24

which counsel had interpreted as an indication that plaintiff no longer wished to pursue this

25

action.” (Id. at 5 n.2.) The time provided to plaintiff in the court’s order to file an amended

26

complaint or voluntary dismissal of this action has now passed. However, plaintiff has not filed

27

an amended complaint, voluntarily dismissed the action, or otherwise contacted the court.

28

/////
1

1

The court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing by Friday, April 28, 2017,

2

why sanctions should not be imposed due to his failure to comply with the court’s February 21,

3

2017 order. Plaintiff is forewarned, that should he fail to respond to this order to show cause in

4

writing, as required, this action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to obey the

5

court’s orders. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 42-46 (1991) (recognizing that it is

6

within the inherent authority of the court to control its docket and require compliance with its

7

orders).

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:

March 30, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2