Canaday et al v. Comcast Corporation et al

Filing 90

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY NON-RESPONSIVE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED; REQUIRING SERVICE; REQUIRING PROPOSED ORDERS; AND VACATING HEARINGS. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 2/21/17. Show Cause Response due by 3/15/2017. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2017)

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