Rosenda Flores et al v. City of California City et al

Filing 48

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/16/2019. (Thorp, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROSENDA FLORES, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

v.

No. 1:18-cv-00703-DAD-JLT

ORDER

CITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Pursuant to the court’s July 1, 2019 order to show cause (Doc. No. 25), plaintiffs Rosenda

17
18

Flores, Juan Flores, Rosanna Flores, and Ciriaco Flores appeared telephonically before the court

19

on July 16, 2019 to show cause why this action should not be dismissed due to their failure to

20

prosecute this action and failure to obey the court’s orders with respect to informing the court if

21

and how they wished to proceed with their case after the unexpected death of their attorney.

22

Maria Taeza also appeared at the hearing telephonically as plaintiffs’ translator. Attorney G.

23

Craig Smith appeared telephonically as counsel for defendant City of California City.
At the hearing on the order to show cause, plaintiff Ciriaco Flores informed the court that,

24
25

despite having met with a few attorneys, he and the other plaintiffs have been unsuccessful in

26

securing substitute counsel. Each of the plaintiffs present at the July 16, 2019 hearing informed

27

the court that they wished to proceed with this action and requested an extension of time from the

28

/////
1

1

court within which to secure substitute counsel. Defense counsel did not object to plaintiffs’

2

request.

3

Good cause appearing, the court will grant plaintiffs an extension to file an amended

4

complaint by August 27, 2019. During this time, plaintiffs are free to secure substitute counsel.

5

If plaintiffs are able to find such counsel, then that counsel should substitute into this case by

6

filing a notice of appearance and also file an amended complaint by the August 27, 2019

7

deadline. If any counsel wishing to substitute in as counsel for plaintiffs requires additional time

8

to file an amended complaint, then s/he shall file a motion with the court seeking additional time

9

to do so. If substitute counsel is not obtained by plaintiffs and they desire to proceed with this

10

action by representing themselves in this matter1, they must file an amended complaint by the

11

August 27, 2019 deadline. Failure to file an amended complaint by August 27, 2019 will

12

result in dismissal of this case without prejudice2 for failure to prosecute.

13

The Clerk of Court is directed to serve this order on plaintiffs by mail at 21361 Reed

14

Place, California City, CA 93505.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:

July 16, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Should plaintiffs decide to represent themselves in this matter, each plaintiff may only represent
himself or herself and he or she may not represent any other plaintiff.
“Without prejudice” means without prejudice to plaintiffs’ refiling this action at a later time. In
other words, dismissal of this case without prejudice means that plaintiffs will be able to refile
their claims in the future should they wish to do so subject to any applicable statute of limitations.
2
2