Plyley v. Grangaard

Filing 44

ORDER RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Alsup on 2/21/2014. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2014).

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

GENE PLYLEY,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

No. C 12-05825 WHA

v.
MARLENE L. GRANGAARD,
individually and as trustee of the
MARLENE L. GRANGAARD
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, dba
CLAM BEACH INN, aka CLAM DIGGER
BAR,

ORDER RE ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE AND DISMISSAL

Defendants.
/

17
18

Pursuant to the order to show cause dated February 12, 2014 (Dkt. No. 42), defendants

19

have filed a response, opposing the request of plaintiff’s attorney Jason Singleton for an order

20

dismissing the federal claim and not extending supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim.

21

This is well after the commencement of this lawsuit in November 2012, and after defendants

22

moved for summary judgment — which was granted in part in November 2013. Trial is now

23

set for March 24, 2014, but plaintiff evidently has decided to walk away from this action

24

because, he says, he “is now terminally ill and not expected to survive long” (Opp. 1). No

25

declaration or affidavit confirms that.

26

Given that trial is a mere month away, and defense counsel have spent considerable

27

time and effort on litigation thus far, any dismissal should be conditioned on the dismissal of

28

the entire action with prejudice. Accordingly, plaintiff has the option of either accepting such
a dismissal with prejudice or proceeding with the litigation of his claims. Whether or not

1

plaintiff should pay attorney’s fees and costs to defendant if he dismisses is not decided now.

2

Plaintiff must file a notice as to which option he chooses by 5 PM ON MARCH 6, 2014.

3

With respect to defendants’ potential motion for discovery sanctions, it is premature to

4

consider retaining jurisdiction for that purpose as dismissal has not yet been entered. Defense

5

counsel should note, however, that if they seek such sanctions, they should file a proper motion

6

that would be due by 5 PM ON MARCH 6, 2014.

7

Furthermore, until there is an actual dismissal, please be aware that all deadlines and

2014, as well as a final pretrial conference on March 12, 2014, and a trial on March 24, 2014.

10

This also means that submissions for the final pretrial conference are due by MARCH 5, 2014.

11
For the Northern District of California

dates remain in this case. As such, there will still be a summary judgment hearing on March 6,

9

United States District Court

8

Failure by Attorney Singleton to appear at the final pretrial conference or at trial will likely

12

result in this action being dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: February 21, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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