We 2 Corp. et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 19

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 2/13/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 1/24/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7

WE 2 CORP., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No.17-cv-05012-JSC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 11, , 16
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff William Warren filed this pro se civil action on his own behalf and on behalf of

14

We 2 Corp. on August 29, 2017. (Dkt. No. 1.) However, a corporation cannotbe represented by a

15

non-attorney. See Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) (“A corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or

16

other such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this Court.”); see also Rowland

17

v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993) (“a

18

corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel”).

19

Further, although the Clerk issued the summons on September 1, 2017, Plaintiff failed to

20

serve Defendants within 90 days and failed to appear at the Case Management Conference on

21

November 30, 2017. (Dkt. No. 7.) Accordingly, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to

22

why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute based on Plaintiff’s failure to serve

23

the Defendants and failure to appear at the Case Management Conference. (Dkt. No. 8.) Plaintiff

24

was ordered to show cause in writing. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the Court’s

25

Order, but he filed proof of service of the summons and complaint on some of the Defendants on

26

December 11, 2017. (Dkt. Nos. 9 & 10.) Defendants the City and County of San Francisco, and

27

Kathleen McCann responded by filing separate motions to dismiss, which Plaintiff has not

28

opposed, although the time to do so has run. (Dkt. Nos. 11 & 16.)

1

Accordingly, Plaintiff is again ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why this action

2

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Plaintiff shall

3

simultaneously show cause in writing and respond to the pending motions to dismiss by

4

February 13, 2018. The hearing on the motions to dismiss is reset for March 1, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.

5

in Courtroom F, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, California.

6

Plaintiff is also advised that We 2 Corp. must obtain counsel in order to proceed with this

7

action. Plaintiff may contact the Legal Help Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room

8

2796, Telephone No. (415)-782-8982, for free assistance regarding his claims.

9
10

Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause may result in the dismissal of this action.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2018

14
15
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2