(PS) Shinshuri v. California Physicians' Services

Filing 34

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/15/2023 DENYING 24 Motion to Proceed or Alternatively for Default Judgment as premature. (Woodson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TAMME SHINSHURI,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:18-cv-03143 TLN CKD (PS)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’
SERVICES,
Defendant.

17
18

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. Before the court is

19

plaintiff’s motion claiming that defendant failed to follow the August 2, 2019 order issued by the

20

district judge in this action. (ECF No. 24.) That order administratively stayed this case pending

21

state court proceedings in a similar case and directed defendant to inform the court “within thirty

22

(30) days after final resolution of the state court case[.]” (ECF No. 23 at 2.)

23

Plaintiff contends that the state case ended on July 12, 2023 “following the denial of the

24

petition for review in the California Supreme Court.” (ECF No. 24 at 2.) She asks for the stay in

25

this action to be lifted, and alternatively, for default judgment against defendant for failing to

26

timely inform the court of the state case’s resolution. (ECF No. 24 at 16.)

27
28

In opposition, defendant points out that, as of October 18, 2023, the state action was still
pending because plaintiff had a motion set to be heard on October 31, 2023, which was
1

1

subsequently taken off calendar. (ECF No. 29 at 8.) Defendant asserts it will file the required

2

status report in this federal action within the thirty-day window after final resolution of the state

3

case, i.e., in November 2023, along with a motion to dismiss this action. (Id.)

4

Meanwhile, the stay has been lifted in this case to address plaintiff’s recent motion. (ECF

5

No. 31.) Insofar as plaintiff seeks any other relief based on defendant’s alleged failure to follow

6

the August 2, 2019 order, her motion is premature and will be denied.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s motion to proceed or

8

alternatively for default judgment (ECF No. 24) is DENIED as premature.

9

Dated: November 15, 2023
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15

2/shinshuri3143.order

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