Verma, et al. v. Okev, et al.
Filing
90
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 11/22/16 ORDERING that Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. CASE CLOSED (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KRISTI VERMA, et al.
12
13
14
15
No. 13-cv-00865-MCE-DB
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER
EFRAT OKEV, et al.
Defendants.
16
17
On September 26, 2016, the Court, in review of the case docket, ordered Plaintiff
18
Zentek Corporation to obtain counsel and to file a status report regarding the status of its
19
current representation no later than October 11, 2016. ECF No. 87. On September 30,
20
2016, Defendants Efrat Okev, Lloyd Burton, and Augzenta, Inc. filed a Motion to
21
(1) Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint For Failure to Comply With Court Orders or (2) to
22
Preclude Plaintiffs From Offering Evidence. ECF No. 88. Plaintiff Zentek Corporation
23
has failed to respond to the Court’s September 26 Order, and all Plaintiffs have failed to
24
file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, as
25
required under Eastern District of California Local Rule 230(c). The Court on
26
October 13, 2016 thus issued an order that all Plaintiffs show cause in writing by October
27
24, 2016 as to why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice, to which Plaintiffs
28
have failed to respond. ECF No. 89.
1
1
2
The Court thus Orders that Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint be DISMISSED
with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
Dated: November 22, 2016
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?