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)

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