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
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?