Khazaeli v. City of Concord et al

Filing 97

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Alsup on April 18, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/18/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (wsn, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
HAMIDREZAZ KHAZAELI,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

No. C 10-03920 WHA

v.
CITY OF CONCORD, KERRY CERLETTI,
DAVID LIVINGSTON, DAVID HUGHES,
PATRICK MURRAY, SHAHRIAR SHARIFI
KHOU, a/k/a SHAWN SHARIFI,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Defendants.
/

17
18

Subsequent to much motion practice concerning his attorney’s motion to withdraw as

19

counsel and an order granting that motion, plaintiff Hamidrezaz Khazaeli has stopped prosecuting

20

this case. First, he failed to provide his contact information to the Court, so his former counsel

21

was ordered to do so for him (Dkt. Nos. 73 and 80). Second, plaintiff failed to appear for either

22

his deposition or the deposition of defendant Kerry Cerletti. Those had been rescheduled by court

23

order for March 10 and 11 respectively (Dkt. No. 39). Third, plaintiff failed to participate in

24

ADR telephonic conferences on March 1, 8, and 14. Fourth, plaintiff failed to respond to two

25

motions to dismiss by defendants. Fifth, he failed to respond to the two resulting orders to show

26

cause (Dkt. Nos. 94–95). Those orders to show cause required plaintiff to respond by April 15,

27

2011. He has not done so.

28

The order scheduling the depositions of plaintiff and defendant Cerletti stated, “Plaintiff
must appear at both depositions. Failure to appear may lead to dismissal of this lawsuit” (Dkt.

1

No. 39). Moreover, both orders to show cause regarding plaintiff’s failure to respond to either of

2

defendants’ motions to dismiss stated clearly, “If plaintiff does not respond by April 15, 2011,

3

this case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute” (Dkt. Nos. 94–95).

4

A letter sent to plaintiff from this Court’s alternative dispute resolution program has

5

recently been returned as “unclaimed” (Dkt. No. 96). Yet no other item served on plaintiff has

6

been returned as unclaimed or otherwise undeliverable. And even if the Court does not have

7

plaintiff’s proper address, he should be the one faulted for such mistake.

8
9

Defendants, in their motions to dismiss, also request monetary sanctions against plaintiff.
Defendant Shawn Sharifi requests $2,267.67, the cost of his counsel attending the deposition of
plaintiff at which he did not appear. Defendants City of Concord, David Livingston, Kerry

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Cerletti, David Hughes, and Patrick Murray request $1,140.82, their costs for the depositions and

12

ADR teleconferences at which plaintiff did not appear. These requests are DENIED.

13

As plaintiff — after being clearly warned that dismissal was imminent — has failed to

14

prosecute this action, it is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Judgment will be entered in favor of

15

defendants and against plaintiff.

16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18

Dated: April 18, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2