Brambila et al v. Wardell et al

Filing 22

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND SETTING COMPLIANCE HEARING A Compliance Hearing to Show Cause why action should not be dismissed as to remaining defendants is set for 4/6/2012 09:01 AM.. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 2/24/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2012)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8

PEDRO BRAMBILA and DOMINGA
BRAMBILA,
Plaintiffs,

9
10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

Case No.: 4:11-cv-05032-YGR
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
SETTING COMPLIANCE HEARING

v.
JACKIE WARDELL, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

In an Order filed concurrently with this Order to Show Cause, the Court dismissed Defendants

15

Jackie Worden, Catalina Padilla, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. from this action due to Plaintiffs’

16

failure to prosecute.

17

A compliance hearing regarding why the action should not be dismissed as to remaining

18

Defendants Thomas Song and Miles, Bauer, Bergstrom & Winters, LLP (“Defendants Song and Miles

19

LLP”) shall be held on Friday, April 6, 2012 on the Court’s 9:01 a.m. calendar in the Federal

20

Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, in a courtroom to be designated.

21

As to Defendants Song and Miles LLP, it is not clear to the Court whether these Defendants

22

were ever properly served. It is further unclear to the Court what the nature of the allegations against

23

them are. Although Defendants Song and Miles LLP were not parties to any motions to dismiss filed

24

in this action, the Court finds they are similarly situated and entitled to dismissal of the complaint

25

against them. Silverton v. Dep’t of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981) (“A District Court

26

may properly on its own motion dismiss an action as to defendants who have not moved to dismiss

27

where such defendants are in a position similar to that of moving defendants or where claims against

28

such defendants are integrally related.”). The Court sees no reason why a failure to prosecute as to

1

some defendants should not apply to all other defendants, particularly where the alleged actions of the

2

latter defendants are unclear. In addition, Plaintiffs failed to submit a Case Management Conference

3

Statement in response to the Court’s Reassignment Order dated January 18, 2012, nor did Plaintiffs

4

respond to the Court’s Order Regarding Oppositions to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Dkt. Nos.

5

17 & 20, respectively. It does not appear to the Court that Plaintiffs seek to further prosecute this

6

action.

7

Plaintiffs must file a written response to this Order to Show Cause, if they contest it, and must

8

personally appear at the compliance hearing. Neither a special appearance nor a telephonic

9

appearance will be permitted. Failure to file a written response or to appear personally will be

10

deemed an admission that no good cause exists for Plaintiffs’ failure and the action will be dismissed

11

for failure to prosecute.

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: February 24, 2012
_________________________________________

15

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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

2