Baca v. Jeffers, et al

Filing 89

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL. Show Cause Response due by 4/6/2015. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on 3/31/2015. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2015)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

OAKLAND DIVISION

5
6 DAVID O. BACA,

Plaintiff,

7
8

Case No: C 13-02968 SBA
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
DISMISSAL

vs.

9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT

OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL,
10 SERGEANT GRIMES, SERGEANT TRUE,

OFFICER B. RODGERS, OFFICER M.
11 WILSON, OFFICER C. RANDALL,

OFFICER B. JEFFERS, OFFICER B.
12 PHILLIPS, and DOES 1-10,
13

Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff David O. Baca brings the instant action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
State of California and various California Highway Patrol officers.
The parties were previously ordered to submit a joint statement on or before

19

February 17, 2015, regarding the re-referral of the action for settlement. Dkt. 84. On

20

February 13, 2015, counsel for Defendants emailed Plaintiff’s counsel to remind him that

21

the parties were to file a joint statement requesting or rejecting a further settlement

22

conference by February 17, 2015. Dkt. 88 at 1-2 & Ex. A. Plaintiff’s counsel did not

23

respond to the email. Id. Accordingly, no joint statement was filed. Id.

24

On March 12, 2015, the Court issued an order which noted that it had not received

25

the joint statement regarding settlement, as previously ordered. Dkt. 87. The Court

26

therefore ordered the parties to submit their joint statement within seven days, i.e., by

27

March 19, 2015. Dkt. 87.

28

1

On March 16, 2015, defense counsel emailed plaintiff’s counsel, again reminding

2

him that the parties were to file a joint statement requesting or rejecting a further settlement

3

conference by March 19, 2015. Dkt. 88 at 2 & Ex. B. The email also requested that

4

plaintiff’s counsel prepare a first draft of the joint statement. Id. Plaintiff’s counsel did not

5

respond to the email. Id. In view of Plaintiff’s lack of response, Defendants separately

6

filed a statement on March 19, 2015. Id.

7

The failure to comply with a court order is grounds for dismissal of this action under

8

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th

9

Cir. 1992). Accordingly,

10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff shall show cause why the instant action

11

should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with a Court order. By no

12

later than the close of business on April 6, 2015, Plaintiff shall file a Certificate of Counsel

13

that sets forth any basis for opposing dismissal under the factors set forth in Ferdik.

14

Defendants may file a response to the Certificate on April 9, 2015. THE FAILURE TO

15

FULLY COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL BE DEEMED SUFFICIENT GROUNDS

16

TO DISMISS THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 31, 2015

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-