Hopson v. Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California

Filing 35

ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; ORDERING PLAINTIFF PATTY HOPSON TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDERS re 30 Order to Show Cause. Case Management Statement due by 6/18/2014. Further Case Management Conference set for 6/25/2014 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 4, 2014. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Local Rule 16-8, # 2 Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District, # 3 Standing Order, # 4 Certificate/Proof of Service)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PATTY HOPSON, Case No. 13-cv-04723-JST Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant. ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; ORDERING PLAINTIFF PATTY HOPSON TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS Re: ECF No. 30. Plaintiff Patty Hopson, who represents herself, filed this action in Alameda County 13 Superior Court on January 30, 2013, and served Defendant Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for 14 Northern California on September 12, 2013. ECF No. 1. Defendant removed the lawsuit to this 15 court on October 10, 2013, asserting that federal jurisdiction is appropriate because Plaintiff’s 16 claims arise under a federal law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Id. 17 This court ordered the parties to file the Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) 18 certification required by Civil Local Rule 16-8(b), and to file either a stipulation to an ADR 19 Process or a notice of need for an ADR phone conference. October 10, 2013 Order Setting Initial 20 Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (ECF No. 2). The court set specific deadlines 21 for compliance with these orders, which passed in January 2014. Id. The court also ordered the 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 parties to file a joint case management statement by March 12, 2014, and to attend a case management conference on March 26, 2014. January 16, 2014 Clerk’s Notice Setting Case Management Conference (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff Hopson did not comply with any of these orders. Accordingly, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause. May 6, 2014 Order to Show Cause Why Complaint Should Not Be Dismissed with Prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff Hopson responded to the Order to Show Cause in writing, stating that she had 1 2 missed her court appearance because of medical issues. May 19, 2014 letter (ECF No. 33). Accordingly, the court hereby VACATES the Order to Show Cause, and will not dismiss 3 the complaint with prejudice at this time. Instead, the court will provide a final opportunity for 4 Plaintiff to comply with this court’s orders. The court hereby orders as follows: 5  by or before June 18, 2014. 6 7   Plaintiff is ordered to file a case management statement by or before June 18, 2014. She may file a statement jointly with Defendant, or she may file her own statement. 10 The statement must contain the information described in the “Standing Order for All 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Plaintiff is ordered to file either a stipulation to an ADR process, or a notice of need for an ADR telephone conference, by or before June 18, 2014. 8 9 Plaintiff is ordered to file the ADR certification required by Civil Local Rule 16-8(b) Judges of the Northern District of California.” In addition, the court orders Plaintiff to 12 address one additional issue in her case management statement: she must explain 13 whether the claims in this lawsuit, filed on January 30, 2013, are different than the 14 claims in the lawsuit she filed against Defendant in Alameda Superior Court on April 15 21, 2014. Both of these lawsuits are now pending before this court. Plaintiff must 16 explain whether she would oppose consolidating both of these lawsuits into the same 17 case. 18  Plaintiff is ordered to attend the case management conference, which is scheduled for 19 June 25, 2014, at 2:00 P.M., Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San 20 Francisco. In Plaintiff Hopson’s letter, she stated that attending hearings and 21 conferences in San Francisco would pose a financial burden on her. Plaintiff Hopson 22 may request to appear at the case management conference by telephone. If she wishes 23 to appear by telephone, she must send a written request by or before June 18, 2014, and 24 she must provide a direct-dial telephone number at which she can be reached between 25 26 27 2:00 P.M. and 4:30 P.M. on the date of the conference. For Plaintiff’s convenience, the court has attached to this order the following documents:  A copy of Civil Local Rule 16-8, which describes Plaintiff’s obligations to participate 28 2 in Alternative Dispute Resolution. 1 2  The Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California, which describes the required contents of the case management statement. 3 4  5 Since Plaintiff Hopson is proceeding pro se, the court refers her to helpful information for The undersigned’s standing order in civil cases. 6 pro se litigants, including the court’s pro se handbook, which is available on the Northern 7 District’s website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. Plaintiff may also wish to make 8 an appointment with the free Legal Help Center operated by the Bar Association of San Francisco. 9 The Legal Help Center’s phone number is 415-782-8982 and further information is available at 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. If Plaintiff does not comply with this order, the Court is very likely to dismiss this action with prejudice, which means that she will not be allowed to pursue these claims any further. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 4, 2014 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?