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)
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?