Crowell v. U.S. Bankcorp, Inc.

Filing 21

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 03/18/2016. The case management conference set for March 22, 2016 is VACATED. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL EARL CROWELL,

Case No. 15-cv-05776-WHO

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

v.
9
10

U.S. BANKCORP, INC.,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On December 23, 2015, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Dkt. No.

13

10. When plaintiff failed to file an opposition or other response to the motion, I issued an Order to

14

Show Cause directing plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to

15

prosecute. Dkt. No. 12. Then, when it appeared that plaintiff may not have received notice of

16

defendant’s motion to dismiss or of the Order to Show Cause, I dissolved the Order to Show

17

Cause, directed that the relevant filings and orders from this case be served on plaintiff by

18

standard U.S. Mail, and gave plaintiff until February 24, 2016 to respond to defendant’s motion to

19

dismiss. Dkt. No. 13.

20

Plaintiff filed nothing in response. On March 1, 2016, I issued a Second Order to Show

21

Cause, this time giving plaintiff until March 9, 2016 to show cause why the case should not be

22

dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dkt. No. 15. As of today’s date, plaintiff has not responded to

23

that Order.

24

In light of the above, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to

25

prosecute. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing factors

26

relevant to whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order);

27

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Although it is preferred, it is not

28

required that the district court make explicit findings in order to show that it has considered these

1

factors.”). Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 10, is DENIED AS MOOT. The case

2

management conference set for March 22, 2016 is VACATED.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 18, 2016
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

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