Nelson et al v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC

Filing 30

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/9/2016 ORDERING Defendant's 23 pending motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Kristopher Pallesen, Bryan Garcia, and Nickolas Nelson is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff Tonia Ne lson is hereby ORDERED, within 14 days of the date this order is filed, to show cause why the court should not dismiss the "Doe" defendants. Additionally, all attorneys who wish to appear in the EDCA must be admitted to practice or admitte d to appear pro hac vice. See L.R. 180. Plaintiff's counsel, Erik Peterson, appears to not be admitted to the Bar of the EDCA. Accordingly, plaintiff's counsel is hereby ORDERED, within 7 days of entry of this order, to show cause why he sh ould not be sanctioned in the amount of $250 for his failure to comply with the Local Rules. Alternatively, if plaintiffs counsel obtains admission to the Bar of the EDCA within 7 days of entry of this order, the possibility of a sanction will be abated. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

TONIA NELSON, KRISTOPHER
PALLESEN, BRYAN GARCIA and
NICKOLAS NELSON,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:15-CV-00092-KJM-KJN

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
DISMISSAL

v.
LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, INC. and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,1
Defendants.

17

In light of plaintiffs’ request for dismissal (ECF No. 28) and Federal Rule of Civil

18
19

Procedure 41(a)(2), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the claims and all causes of action of

20

plaintiffs Kristopher Pallesen, Bryan Garcia, and Nickolas Nelson are DISMISSED without

21

prejudice.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Ninth Circuit provides “‘[plaintiffs] should be given an opportunity through
discovery to identify [] unknown defendants’” “in circumstances . . . ‘where the identity of the
alleged defendant[] [is] not [] known prior to the filing of a complaint.’” Wakefield v. Thompson,
177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir.
1980)) (modifications in original). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), as recently amended,
provides for dismissal of defendants not served within ninety days of filing of the complaint
unless plaintiff shows good cause. See Glass v. Fields, No. 1:09-00098, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
97604 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2011); Hard Drive Prods. v. Does, No. 11-01567, 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 109837, at *2–4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2011). Plaintiff Tonia Nelson will be ordered to
show cause why the court should not dismiss the “Doe” defendants.
1

1
2
3
4
5

Defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Kristopher
Pallesen, Bryan Garcia, and Nickolas Nelson (ECF No. 23) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT.
Plaintiff Tonia Nelson is hereby ORDERED, within fourteen (14) days of the date
this order is filed, to show cause why the court should not dismiss the “Doe” defendants.
Additionally, all attorneys who wish to appear in the Eastern District of California

6

must be admitted to practice or admitted to appear pro hac vice. See L.R. 180. Plaintiff’s

7

counsel, Erik Peterson, appears to not be admitted to the Bar of the Eastern District of California.

8

Accordingly, plaintiff’s counsel is hereby ORDERED, within seven (7) days of entry of this

9

order, to show cause why he should not be sanctioned in the amount of $250 for his failure to

10

comply with the Local Rules. Alternatively, if plaintiff’s counsel obtains admission to the Bar of

11

the Eastern District of California within seven (7) days of entry of this order, the possibility of a

12

sanction will be abated.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 9, 2016.

15
16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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