Taylor v. Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department et al

Filing 23

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; ORDER VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Show Cause Response due by 1/19/2017. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 1/6/2017. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/6/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (rmm2S, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SHARON E. TAYLOR,

Case No. 16-cv-03738-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
11

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT, et al.,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;
VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Plaintiff Sharon Taylor (“Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit alleging claims for harassment and

14

discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Compl., Dkt. No. 1. Defendants

15

filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on September 30, 2016. Mot., Dkt. No. 14. When

16

Plaintiff did not timely file an opposition to the Motion, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause

17

why her case should not be dismissed. First Order to Show Cause, Dkt. No. 18. Plaintiff

18

responded to the First Order to Show Cause (“OSC”), explaining why she had not responded to

19

the Motion and requesting an extension of time to do so. Response, Dkt. No. 19. The Court

20

discharged the OSC and ordered Plaintiff to respond to the Motion by December 1, 2016. Order,

21

Dkt. No. 20. On November 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Opposition and requested

22

leave to amend her Complaint. Notice, Dkt. No. 21. The Court accordingly granted Defendants’

23

Motion, and gave Plaintiff leave to amend her Complaint. Order re Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 22.

24

The Court specified that “Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint (‘FAC’) no later than

25

December 29, 2016.” Id. at 1. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed a FAC.

26

Accordingly, the Court again ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not

27

be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. Plaintiff shall file

28

a declaration by January 19, 2017. If a responsive declaration is filed, the Court shall issue an

1

order based on the declaration. Notice is hereby provided that failure to file a written response

2

will be deemed an admission that Plaintiff does not intend to prosecute, and the case will be

3

dismissed without prejudice. Thus, it is imperative that the Court receive a written response by

4

the deadline above.

5
6
7

In light of the status of this matter, the Court also VACATES the Case Management
Conference scheduled for January 19, 2017 and all associated deadlines.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: January 6, 2017
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

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