Walker v. Martel

Filing 270

***DISREGARD, ENTERED IN TO THIS CASE IN ERROR.***ORDER. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 1/25/2021. ***Civil Case Terminated. (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2021) Modified on 1/25/2021 (kcS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JEREMIAH THEDE,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-03528-PJH

Plaintiff,

8
v.

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
Re: Dkt. No. 73, 75, 78

12
13

On January 12, 2021, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why this action

14

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). Dkt. 78 at 3. In it, the

15

court detailed plaintiffs’ failure to comply with his discovery obligations, failure to appear

16

or retain substitute counsel, failure to appear for his various noticed and ordered

17

depositions, and general failure to litigate this action. Id. at 1-3. The court permitted

18

plaintiff until January 22, 2021 to file a response addressing these failures. Id. at 3-4.

19

The court specifically cautioned plaintiff that, if he neglected to do so, the court will

20

dismiss this action with prejudice for failure to comply with its prior orders and failure to

21

prosecute under Rule 41(b). Id. at 4. The court further ordered defendant to immediately

22

serve plaintiff with a copy of its January 12, 2021 order, id., which defendant did by post-

23

mail that same day, Dkt. 79.

24

The court also ordered plaintiff’s former counsel, Michael S. Danko and his law

25

firm Danko Meredith (collectively, “attorney Danko”), to file a certification showing its

26

compliance with the court’s November 25, 2020 order requiring that it forward to plaintiff

27

all filings made in this action between November 25, 2020 and December 31, 2020. Dkt.

28

78 at 3. On January 14, 2021, attorney Danko filed a declaration showing its compliance

1
2

with that requirement. Dkt. 80 ¶¶ 4-10.
To date, despite the above-referenced service by counsels in this action,

3

plaintiff has failed to file any response to the court’s orders. Given that failure, the

4

court DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 21, 2021
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

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