Om et al v. Melero et al

Filing 15

ORDER CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS 10 MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/14/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2013)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 KAMAJI OM, et al., Plaintiffs, 5 6 7 8 No. C 12-5498 CW ORDER CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS v. OFFICER MELERO, et al. Defendants. ________________________________/ 9 On November 29, 2012, Defendants, Vickie Virk and several 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California employees of the City of Berkeley, moved to dismiss this action 11 for insufficient service, insufficient service of process, failure 12 to state a claim, and failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil 13 Procedure 8. Plaintiffs, Kamaji Om, Krsnaya Om, and Sukia Tara 14 Aushadhalay, all proceeding pro se, failed to file a timely 15 response to the motion. Civil L.R. 7-3(a). All case-related mail 16 that has been sent to Plaintiffs since November 19, 2012 has been 17 returned as undeliverable. 18 Within seven days of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs shall 19 respond to Defendants’ motion. Defendants shall reply seven days 20 after Plaintiffs’ response is filed. Defendants’ motion will be 21 decided on the papers. 22 Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with this Order will result in 23 the dismissal of their claims against Defendants for failure to 24 prosecute. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 28 Dated: 1/14/2013 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

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?