PP&M Towing & Recovery, Inc. v. The City and County of San Francisco, California et al

Filing 72

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for Failure to Prosecute. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 11/23/10. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2010)

PP&M Towing & Recovery, Inc. v. The City and County of San Francisco, California et al

Doc. 72

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney WAYNE SNODGRASS, State Bar #148137 VINCE CHHABRIA, State Bar #208557 Deputy City Attorneys City Hall, Room 234 #1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102-4682 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-Mail: [e-mail]

Attorneys for Defendants THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PP&M TOWING & RECOVERY, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, a subdivision of the State of California; and GEORGE GASCON, in his capacity as the Chief of Police of the City of San Francisco, California,; and DOES 1 THROUGH 20, Defendant. Case No. CV 10 1466 TEH [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Date: Time: Place: November 22, 2010 10:00 a.m. Courtroom G, 15th Floor

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; CASE NO. CV 10 1466 TEH
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Date:

On October 13, 2010, counsel for plaintiff PP&M Towing & Recovery, Inc. ("PP&M") filed a motion to withdraw on the ground that PP&M had breached its fee agreement with counsel. The motion was noticed for hearing on November 22, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. In connection with his motion, counsel testified by declaration that he had attempted repeatedly to contact his client by telephone and electronic mail regarding the alleged breach of the fee agreement, and regarding his intent to move to withdraw as counsel. Counsel testified that PP&M did not respond to these messages. Defendant City and County of San Francisco ("City") filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion to withdraw. PP&M itself did not file a response to the motion. On November 4, 2010, this Court issued an order directing PP&M to appear at the November 22, 2010 hearing, either through substitute counsel or by a corporate representative. The Court's order further directed that, if PP&M had not obtained substitute counsel by the date of the hearing but wished to continue pursuing the case, its corporate representative must come prepared to inform the Court of the steps the company had taken and would take to locate substitute counsel, or to present reasons why the motion by current counsel to withdraw should not be granted. Furthermore, the Court's order directed that if PP&M did not appear at the November 22, 2010 hearing, either through substitute counsel or by a corporate representative, then the Court would dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. Finally, the Court's order directed that current counsel for PP&M send a copy of the order to PP&M both by electronic mail and United States mail. Current counsel for PP&M filed a proof of service on November 4, 2010, certifying that he had served the Court's order on PP&M in accordance with the instructions of the order. The matter came on for hearing on November 22, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. PP&M did not appear at the hearing, either through substitute counsel or through a corporate representative. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and pursuant to this Court's order of November 4, 2010, the case is hereby DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. It is so ordered. 11/23/ , 2010
UNIT ED
S DISTRICT TE C TA

RT U O

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; CASE NO. CV 10 1466 TEH

N

F D IS T IC T O R

A

1

n:\govlit\li2010\101151\00664722.doc

ER

C

LI

FO

h Judge T

elton E.

Hender

R NIA

The Honorable Thelton E. Henderson Judge of the United States District Court son
NO

S

RT
H