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).

Download PDF
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

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?