The Redd Group, LLC v. The Glass Guru Franchise Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 55

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT IMPOSE SANCTIONS FOR PLAINTIFFS FAILURE TIMELY TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. Show Cause Response due by 11/5/2013. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on October 17, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

THE REDD GROUP, LLC, et al.,

Case No. 12-cv-04070-JST

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

THE GLASS GURU FRANCHISE
SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
COURT SHOULD NOT IMPOSE
SANCTIONS FOR PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE TIMELY TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants.
NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT
SHOULD NOT IMPOSE SANCTIONS:

14

On July 7, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to

15

dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Order, ECF No. 45. The Court granted with leave

16

to amend Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ contributory infringement claim. The Court

17

Ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint or notice of submission to the Court’s dismissal of

18

that claim within thirty days, and warned Plaintiff that failure to do so could result in sanctions.

19

Order p. 10 n. 2 (“Failure to file either an amended complaint or a notice of submission to the Court’s

20

dismissal of those claims may constitute violation of a court order, subject to appropriate sanctions up

21

to and including involuntary dismissal of the relevant causes of action.”).

22

On July 19, 2013, the Court stayed this action for ninety days pursuant to a stipulated

23

request, so the parties could engage in mediation. ECF No. 48. The parties had requested that the

24

Court continue the deadline for Plaintiff to file its Second Amended Complaint to November 5,

25

2013. ECF No. 47. The Court ordered instead that Plaintiff file its Second Amended Complaint

26

by October 16, 2013. ECF No. 48 p. 1. Plaintiff has not filed one.

27
28

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not
dismiss this action, or impose other appropriate sanctions, for failure to comply with a Court

1

Order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Yourish v. California Amplifier,

2

191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff shall respond to this Order in writing by November 5,

3

2013, by either (1) filing a Second Amended Complaint or (2) demonstrating good cause for

4

Plaintiff’s failure to file a Second Amended Complaint.

5
6
7
8
9
10

Failure to respond to this Order will constitute an additional ground for the imposition of
appropriate sanctions, including involuntarily dismissal with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 17, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2