Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America v. Dick Emard Electric, Inc.

Filing 22

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE AND CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 1/19/12. Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause (OSC) in a writing to be filed no later than 1/30/12 why this action should not be dism issed. The written response shall state whether a hearing is requested on the OSC. If a hearing is requested, it will be held just prior to the status conference, which is RESET to 2/27/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.. A status report shall be filed no later than 14 days prior to the status conference. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY
COMPANY OF AMERICA, a
Connecticut corporation,
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

15

DICK EMARD ELECTRIC, INC. dba
EMARD ELECTRIC, a California
corporation; LUKE EMARD, an
individual; EMARD’S ELECTRICAL
HOME TECHNICIANS, INC., an
entity of unknown form; and
EMARD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a
California corporation,
inclusive,

16

Defendants.
________________________________

11
12
13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-00716-GEB-EFB
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE

17
18

The

July

21,

2011,

Order

Continuing

Status

(Pretrial

19

Scheduling) Conference required Plaintiff to file a motion for default

20

judgment as to Defendants DICK EMARD ELECTRIC, INC. dba EMARD ELECTRIC,

21

a California corporation; EMARD’S ELECTRICAL HOME TECHNICIANS, INC., an

22

entity of unknown form; and EMARD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California

23

corporation (“the entity defendants”) “within forty-five (45) days of

24

the date on which [the] Order [was] filed.” (ECF No. 16, 2:1-3.) If

25

Plaintiff failed to timely file the motion for default judgment, the

26

July 21, 2011, Order required “Plaintiff [to] show cause in writing no

27

later than 4:00 p.m. on September 19, 2011, why [the entity defendants]

28

should not be dismissed for failure of prosecution.” Id. at 2:3-6.

1

1

On September 16, 2011 Plaintiff filed an unnoticed Request for

2

Extension of Time to File Default Judgment, in which it sought an

3

extension of time until November 21, 2011, to file a motion for entry of

4

default judgment as to all defendants. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff has not

5

yet filed a motion for entry of default judgment.

6

Further,

the

July

21,

2011,

Order

scheduled

a

status

7

conference in this case on January 30, 2012, and required the filing of

8

a status report no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the scheduling

9

conference, in which Plaintiff was required to explain the status of the

10

default proceedings. (ECF No. 16, 2:26-3:2.) No status report was filed

11

as ordered.

12

In light of Plaintiff’s apparent failure to prosecute this

13

action, Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”) in a writing to be

14

filed no later than January 30, 2012 why this action should not be

15

dismissed

16

Procedure 41(b). The written response shall state whether a hearing is

17

requested on the OSC. If a hearing is requested, it will be held on

18

February 27, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., just prior to the status conference,

19

which is rescheduled to that date and time. A status report shall be

20

filed no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference.

21
22

for

failure

of

prosecution

under

Federal

Rule

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 19, 2012

23
24
25

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2

of

Civil