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)

Download PDF
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?