Johnson v. Mann et al

Filing 26

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 11/7/12 ORDERING that since no dispositional document has been filed, and Plaintiff has not provided any reason for the continued pendency of this action, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. CASE CLOSED (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

Scott N. Johnson,
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

12

Shingara Singh Mann,
Individually and d/b/a Jackpot
Market & Deli; Paramjit Kaur
Mann, Individually and d/b/a
Jackpot Market & Deli,

13

Defendants.
________________________________

10
11

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

2:11-cv-02646-GEB-KJN
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

14
15

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement on June 13, 2012, in

16

which he indicated that dispositional documents would be filed within

17

twenty (20) calendar days. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff subsequently obtained

18

two extensions of time to file the dispositional documents, with the

19

most recent extension setting a deadline of September 4, 2012. (ECF Nos.

20

20, 22.) The September 4th deadline passed, and Plaintiff neither filed

21

a dispositional document nor requested a further extension of time.

22

Therefore, on September 20, 2012, the magistrate judge issued an order

23

requiring Plaintiff to show cause (“OSC”) why the action should not be

24

dismissed without prejudice for failure to file dispositional documents

25

by the deadline set by the court. (ECF No. 23.) See E.D. Cal. L.R.

26

160(b) (“A failure to file dispositional papers on the date prescribed

27

by the Court may be grounds for sanctions”).

28
1

1

Plaintiff

responded

to

the

OSC

on

September

25,

2012,

2

following which the magistrate judge discharged the OSC in an order

3

filed

4

[Plaintiff] a final 21-day extension to file the necessary dispositional

5

documents[,]” until November 6, 2012, and “cautioned [Plaintiff] that

6

failure to file dispositional documents by that deadline may result in

7

dismissal of the action without prejudice.” (ECF No. 25.)

October

16,

2012.

The

October

16th

order

also

“provided

8

Since no dispositional document has been filed, and Plaintiff

9

has not provided any reason for the continued pendency of this action,

10

this action is dismissed without prejudice.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 7, 2012

13
14
15

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2