Brooke v. Shyam LLC

Filing 8

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE RECOMMENDED FOR DISMISSAL. By no later than July 27, 2018, Plaintiff shall: a) file a written response showing cause why the Court should not dismiss this action for failure to comply with the Court&# 039;s June 25, 2018, order and for want of prosecution; b) file a motion for default judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) against Defendant; or c) file a notice of dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/24/2018. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13

THERESA BROOKE, a married woman
dealing with her sole and separate claim,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17
18

Case No. 1:18-cv-00392-DAD-SKO
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE
RECOMMENDED FOR DISMISSAL

v.
(Doc. 7)
SHYAM LLC, a California limited liability
company dba Best Western Fresno Inn,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

19
On March 22, 2018, Plaintiff Theresa Brooke filed a complaint pursuant to Title III of the
20

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213; the California Unruh Act,

21
California Civil Code § 51 et seq.; and the California Disabled Persons Act, California Civil Code
22

§§ 54–54.3. (Doc. 1 (“Compl.”).) Plaintiff alleges that she requires the use of a wheelchair for

23
mobility (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 9), and the property that is the subject of this suit, Best Western Fresno Inn
24

(the “Property”), presents a barrier that interfered with her ability to use and enjoy the goods,

25
services, privileges, and accommodations offered at the Property (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 11–16). Defendant
26
Shyam LLC was served with the Complaint on March 27, 2018 (Doc. 4), and default was entered
27
against it on April 20, 2018. (Doc. 6.)
28

1

On June 25, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff, within 21 days of entry of the order, to file its

2 motion for default judgment against Defendant. (Doc. 7.) In accordance with the order, Plaintiff’s
3 motion for default judgment was due to be filed on or before July 16, 2018. (See id.) To date, no
4 motion for default judgment has been filed. Plaintiff is, therefore, ordered to show cause, if any,
5 why the action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s June 25, 2018, order
6 and for want of prosecution. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a motion for default judgment against
7 Defendant or a notice of dismissal.
8

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1.

10

By no later than July 27, 2018, Plaintiff shall:
a.

file a written response showing cause why the Court should not dismiss this

11

action for failure to comply with the Court’s June 25, 2018, order and for

12

want of prosecution; or

13

b.

14

file a motion for default judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) against
Defendant; or

15

c.

file a notice of dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

16 Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause will result in a recommendation to the
17 presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed in its entirety.
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 Dated:
21

July 24, 2018

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.