Kreslake v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Filing 22

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by no later than September 27, 2013 why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(b). In addition, plaintiff is ORDERED to file and ser ve an opposition to defendants motion to dismiss no later than September 27, 2013. Defendants reply is due October 4, 2013, and a hearing on the motion is scheduled for October 11, 2013 at 9:00 am. If plaintiff does provide adequate and timely responses, this action will be dismissed without prejudice.. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 9/13/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2013)

1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

LINDSAY KRESLAKE,

5
6
7
8

No. C 13-02080 SI

Plaintiff,
v.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendant.

THIRD ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

/

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Pro se plaintiff Kreslake filed this suit against defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc., in
Alameda County Superior Court for “violation of FDCPA 5809 & violations of Rosenthal Act.” Compl.
at 2. On May 14, 2013, after the case was removed to this Court, defendant filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The hearing was set for June 28, 2013, and
plaintiff’s opposition was due on May 30, 2013. Plaintiff did not file an opposition, nor did plaintiff
request an extension of time. Accordingly, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause by no later than
June 28, 2013, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Then, on June 26, 2013,
the Court’s order was returned as undeliverable to plaintiff’s address. A second order to show cause
issued on July 2, 2013, but it was not clear from the record whether plaintiff received it.
Plaintiff has now spoken with the courtroom deputy, by telephone, and has informed her of two
addresses (P.O. Box 1453, Los Alamos, NM 87544; and P.O. Box 1622, Pebble Beach, CA 93953)
which will reach plaintiff. Further, plaintiff provided the courtroom deputy with a phone number at
which plaintiff could be reached for the regularly-scheduled Case Management Conference on Friday,
September 13, 2013, at 2:30 pm. Defense counsel was present for the Case Management Conference;
however, the phone number plaintiff provided did not answer, but went straight to voicemail. The Case
Management Conference proceeded without plaintiff’s presence.
Accordingly, plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by no later than
September 27, 2013 why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ.
Proc. 41(b). In addition, plaintiff is ORDERED to file and serve an opposition to defendant’s
motion to dismiss no later than September 27, 2013. Defendant’s reply is due October 4, 2013,
and a hearing on the motion is scheduled for October 11, 2013 at 9:00 am.

1
2

If plaintiff does provide adequate and timely responses, this action will be dismissed without
prejudice.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: September 13, 2013
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2