Om et al v. Melero et al

Filing 43

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/16/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

KAMAJI OM, KRSNAYA OM, and SUKLA
TARA AUSHADHALAY,

No. C 12-5498 CW

5

Plaintiffs,

ORDER DISMISSING
CASE FOR FAILURE
TO PROSECUTE

6

v.

7

OFFICER MELERO, et al.,

8

Defendants.
________________________________/

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

On February 27, 2013, the Court issued an order dismissing

11

Plaintiffs’ claims against City Defendants with prejudice.

12

No. 41.

13

to amend their claims against Defendant Vickie Virk and to “show

14

good cause why their claims against Virk should not be dismissed

15

for failure to complete timely service as required by Federal Rule

16

of Civil Procedure 4(m).”

17

Plaintiffs that “failure to comply with the instructions in this

18

order may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to

19

prosecute.”

20

Docket

In that order, the Court gave Plaintiffs twenty-one days

Id. at 10.

The Court also warned

Id. at 10-11.

Because Plaintiffs have failed to file an amended complaint

21

and have not shown good cause why their claims against Virk should

22

survive, the Court hereby DISMISSES their claims against Virk with

23

prejudice.

24

the file.

25

The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: 4/16/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge