Ver v. Hurtado et al

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/4/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2012)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

6
7
8
9

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS

v.
ALFREDO HURTADO, UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, DOES 1-10,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 12-01365 RS

THOMAS VER,

12

Defendants.
____________________________________/

13
14

The initially assigned Magistrate Judge recommended on August 28, 2012 that this matter be

15

dismissed due to failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with the Court’s deadline and orders.

16

On September 10, 2012 Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a declaration explaining that plaintiff had

17

missed the hearing dates and order to show cause because the court dates had not been properly

18

“administered for service,” and plaintiff’s counsel was not familiar with Federal Court procedures.

19

While counsel are required to be familiar with both the federal and local rules of this Court, as no

20

prejudice has been shown from the delay, the action may proceed. Accordingly, defendant

21

Hurtado’s subsequently filed motion to dismiss based entirely on the failure identified in the

22

Magistrate Judge’s order is denied. The previously scheduled case management conference remains

23

on calendar.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

Dated: 10/4/12
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
NO. C 12-01365RS