Garcia v. Zavala et al

Filing 30

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 5/30/2018. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 5/25/2018. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ANGELICA GARCIA,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-06253-MEJ
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
PASCUAL ZAVALA, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

At the May 24, 2018 initial Case Management Conference in this matter, counsel for

14

Plaintiff Angelica Garcia represented that she does not name Miriam Arevalo as a defendant and

15

that Ms. Arevalo is only named in Pascual Zavala’s crossclaim. May 24, 2018 FTR at 10:21 (Q.

16

“What about Ms. Arevalo?” A. “I believe that’s Defendant’s, they’re trying to serve Ms. Arevalo

17

on their crosscomplaint.” Q. “You don’t have a complaint against her at this point?” A. “No,

18

Your Honor.” Q. “There’s nothing pending?” A. “No.”).

19

This is misrepresents the record. Plaintiff repeatedly names Ms. Arevalo as a defendant in

20

her Complaint. See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 1, 4, 15, Dkt. No. 1. On January 10, 2018, Plaintiff served

21

Ms. Arevalo with a copy of the summons and Complaint. Proof of Service, Dkt. No. 13; see Prop.

22

Summons, Dkt. No. 9; Pl.’s Status Report, Dkt. No. 18 (“Plaintiff has filed proof of service for

23

service of summons on all three defendants in this case, P&Z Foods, Inc., Pascual Zavala and

24

Miriam Arevalo. None of the defendants have appeared.”); Joint CMC Stmt. at 2, Dkt. No. 25

25

(noting “Defendants P&Z Foods and Miriam Arevalo have not appeared in this action”).

26

Plaintiff initiated this action in October 2017. See Compl. The Court twice continued and

27

once vacated the CMC because Defendants had not appeared and Plaintiff did not indicate how

28

she intended to proceed against them. Order Continuing CMC, Dkt. No. 15; Order Vacating

1

CMC, Dkt. No. 17; Order Setting CMC, Dkt. No. 19. Ms. Arevalo still has not responded to the

2

Complaint, and Plaintiff still has not dismissed or sought default against her. See Docket. It has

3

been seven months since Plaintiff filed her Complaint and more than four months since Plaintiff

4

served Ms. Arevalo. Plaintiff has had more than sufficient time to determine her litigation

5

strategy; as the Court previously noted, she is represented by four attorneys. Order Setting CMC

6

at 1 n.1.

7

Based on Plaintiff’s representations at the CMC and Plaintiff’s inaction thus far, Plaintiff

8

shall show cause why the Court should not dismiss Ms. Arevalo from this action. Plaintiff shall

9

file a declaration no later than May 30, 2018.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Dated: May 25, 2018
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2