Canaday et al v. Comcast Corporation et al

Filing 90


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DANIEL CANADAY, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California JASON WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 Docket Nos.: 83, 84 v. 11 12 Case No. 15-cv-04648-JSW Case No. 15-cv-04732-JSW Docket Nos.: 65, 66 v. 16 COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. 17 JEFFREY COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, 18 19 20 21 22 25 26 27 28 Docket Nos.: 63, 64 v. COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. CALEB DUBOIS, et al., Case No. 15-cv-04809-JSW Plaintiffs, 23 24 Case No. 15-cv-04782-JSW v. COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Docket Nos.: 63, 64 1 GREGORY PETERS, et al., Plaintiffs, 2 3 4 5 6 9 COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. CORY BARRETT HALL, United States District Court Northern District of California 14 COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA, INC., et al., Defendants. JOSEPH JOSHUA DAVIS, et al., 19 Docket Nos.: 58, 59 v. COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. LAWRENCE ELKINS, et al., 17 18 Case No. 16-cv-04177-JSW Plaintiffs, 15 16 Docket Nos.: 60, 61 v. 12 13 Case No. 16-cv-04175-JSW Plaintiff, 10 11 Docket Nos.: 91, 92 v. 7 8 Case No. 15-cv-04869-JSW Case No. 16-cv-04180-JSW Plaintiffs, Docket Nos.: 61, 62 v. COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., 20 Defendants. 21 HERNAN PAEZ, et al., 22 Plaintiffs, 23 24 25 Case No. 16-cv-04181-JSW Docket Nos.: 56, 57 v. COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. 26 27 28 2 KRIS COOK, et al., 1 Plaintiffs, 2 Docket Nos.: 62, 63 v. 3 COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., 4 Defendants. 5 KEVIN HUFFMAN, et al., 6 Case No. 16-cv-04183-JSW Plaintiffs, 7 v. 8 COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY NONRESPONSIVE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED; REQUIRING SERVICE; REQUIRING PROPOSED ORDERS; AND VACATING HEARINGS Docket Nos.: 61, 62 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 16-cv-04182-JSW On January 31, 2017, counsel for Plaintiffs moved to withdraw as from the representation 12 13 of certain individual Plaintiffs in these eleven related cases.1 The docket numbers of these 14 motions are listed in the caption of this order. The motions were originally noticed for March 3, 15 2017. In the motions and supporting declarations, counsel stated that communications with the 16 17 individual Plaintiffs in question have broken down, and that these specific individual Plaintiffs 18 have not responded to counsel’s ongoing and repeated attempts to contact them over the course of 19 several months. 20 The Court entered a docket note following the filing of these motions to notify counsel that 21 counsel must renotice the motions for a day at least 35 days after the date of filing and file a proof 22 of service on the individual Plaintiffs in question. The following day, counsel for Plaintiffs 23 renoticed the motions for March 24, 2017 and filed proofs of service showing service on these 24 individual Plaintiffs “either by facsimile or in sealed envelopes.” Mailing addresses were listed on 25 the proofs of service, but facsimile numbers were not. The proofs of service indicated that service 26 of the motions was made, but not service of the revised notices of hearing. The docket numbers of 27 1 28 No motions to withdraw as counsel have been filed in the other seven cases that are related to these cases. 3 1 2 3 the revised hearing notices and proofs of service are also listed in the caption of this order. Responses to the motions to withdraw were due by February 15, 2017. No responses have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and is aware that this motion to withdraw 5 follows discovery proceedings before Magistrate Judge Vadas. In those discovery proceedings, 6 the parties filed a joint letter brief on December 1, 2016 stating that “Plaintiffs’ counsel intends to 7 dismiss or withdraw from representation” with regard to a list of non-responding individual 8 Plaintiffs in the related cases. Thereafter, in December 2016, Magistrate Judge Vadas filed an 9 order in each case in December 2016 reciting that Plaintiffs’ counsel represented at a hearing that 10 the non-responding Plaintiffs would be dismissed. Certain individual Plaintiffs have subsequently 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 4 been dismissed pursuant to stipulation. Others, however, remain in these cases. It is these 12 remaining non-responding Plaintiffs who are the subject of the pending motions to withdraw. 13 The motions to withdraw are due to the non-responsiveness of the individual Plaintiffs, and 14 follow Defendants’ contention that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with discovery obligations. 15 The question arises, therefore, whether their counsel should be allowed to withdraw, leaving non- 16 responsive Plaintiffs in this litigation without counsel, or whether their cases should be dismissed 17 for failure to prosecute. This court weighs five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case 18 for failure to prosecute: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 19 court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 20 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” 21 Malone v. United States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (quotation omitted). 22 The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE, no later than March 15, 23 2017, why the following individual Plaintiffs should not be dismissed with prejudice from 24 these cases for failure to prosecute: 25 Canaday v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04648-JSW 26  Ryan Murray. The Court notes that the trial of Mr. Murray’s case remains 27 scheduled for March 6, 2017. If Mr. Murray does not comply with the pretrial 28 schedule in his case and appear for trial, he is HEREBY WARNED that his case 4 also will be dismissed for failure to prosecute for that additional reason. 1 2 Williams v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04732-JSW 3  Brian Antis 4  Kevin Cook 5  Hector Martinez 6  Peter Neang 7  Samour Soeung 8 Coleman v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04782-JSW  Jeff Keith Chung 10  Terrence Ruffen 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9  Christopher Thatcher 12 13 14 DuBois v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04809-JSW  Lawrence Wing Peters v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04869-JSW 15  Benjamin Cabanayan 16  Steven Kremesec, Jr. 17  Christian Olague 18  Sean Pate 19  Scott Rader 20  Chieu Vo 21 22 23 Hall v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04175-JSW  Cory Barrett Hall Davis v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04177-JSW 24  Rafael Barajas, Jr. 25  Joseph Joshua Davis 26  Penny Schoonover 27 28 Elkins v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04180-JSW  Lawrence Elkins 5 1 Paez v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04181-JSW 2  Darrin Brooks and/or the Estate of 3  Nicholas DePriest 4  David Johnson, Jr. 5  Daniel Woodard 6 Cook v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04182-JSW 7  Fernando Inigo 8  Dorsey Ford 9  Steven Souza 10 Huffman v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04183-JSW United States District Court Northern District of California 11  Mark Haumschilt 12  Kevin Huffman 13  Heng Ith 14  Robert Lowry 15  Jeremy Powell 16 These individual Plaintiffs may: (1) respond to this order to show cause through their 17 current counsel; (2) respond without an attorney; or (3) hire a new attorney and respond through 18 that new attorney, after the attorney files an appropriate notice of appearance in compliance with 19 Northern District of California Civil Local Rules 5-1(c)(2) and 11-5. Regardless of how Plaintiffs 20 respond, their responses must be received by the Court no later than March 15, 2017. 21 The Court hereby WARNS the individual Plaintiffs listed above that the failure to respond 22 by March 15, 2017, either individually or through counsel, is very likely to result in the 23 DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE of each of their cases, as to them individually, for failure to 24 prosecute. 25 The Court further ORDERS counsel for Plaintiffs to serve a copy of this order via U.S. 26 Mail on each of the individual Plaintiffs listed above (i.e., all the Plaintiffs who are the subject of 27 the motions to withdraw). Plaintiffs’ counsel shall file proof of such service no later than 28 February 22, 2017. 6 If any Plaintiff resp P ponds to the order to sho cause, any party (incl ow y luding Defen ndants or 1 2 tha Plaintiff’s counsel) ma file a reply no later th March 22 2017. at ay han 2, 3 ourt nsel ntiffs that ev very motion filed in this Court must The Co further reminds coun for Plain 4 be accompanie by a propo ed osed order. N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 7-2 N 2(c). The mo otions to wit thdraw were 5 not accompanied by proposed orders. Accordingly no later th March 24 2017, Plai t y, han 4, intiffs shall 6 file an appropriate propose order in ea case (or a single pro e ed ach oposed order for all cases The r s). 7 pro oposed order may seek withdrawal by Plaintiffs counsel an rs b s’ nd/or dismiss as Plaint sal, tiffs deem 8 app propriate following any responses to this order to show caus r o o se. Good cause appeari the Cou finds that the pending motions to withdraw ar ing, urt g re 9 app propriate for decision wi r ithout oral ar rgument, and VACATES the hearin in each ca scheduled d ng ase d 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 b). for March 24, 2017. See N.D. Cal. Civ L.R. 7-1(b r 2 N vil The Co reserves ruling on Pl ourt laintiffs’ mo otions to with hdraw as cou unsel. Acco ordingly, 12 13 Pla aintiffs’ coun shall con nsel ntinue to rep present the in ndividual Plaintiffs listed above pen nding further r 14 ord der. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDER S RED. Da ated: Februar 21, 2017 ry 17 18 JE EFFREY S. W WHITE Un nited States D District Judg ge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7

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?