De La Luz et al v. Pape Material Handling, Inc.

Filing 55

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 3/9/2018. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2018) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/9/2018: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (kcS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GUMILDO DE LA LUZ, et al.,

9

v.

10

PAPE MATERIAL HANDLING, INC.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-05062-PJH

Plaintiffs,

8

Defendant.

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO
RESPOND TO MOTION FOR
INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
Re: Dkt. No. 54

12
13

The court is in receipt of defendant’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil

14

Procedure 41(b) based on plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute this action and to comply with

15

this court’s order compelling discovery. Dkts. 49, 54. Plaintiffs have failed to respond to

16

that motion and the deadline to do so passed on February 26, 2018.

17

Amongst other conduct indicating plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute this action,

18

plaintiffs have wholly failed to participate in discovery. Though plaintiffs chose November

19

29, 2017, as the date of their deposition, they failed to appear on that date—without any

20

explanation or notice to defense counsel. Dkt. 54-1, Menendez Decl. ¶ 11. In response

21

to this failure and plaintiffs’ general failure to respond to propounded discovery, the

22

defendant filed a motion to compel. Dkt. 46. After plaintiffs failed to respond to that

23
24
25
26
27
28

motion, the court granted the defendant’s motion and ordered plaintiffs to respond to
defendant’s propounded discovery by December 28, 2017. Dkt. 49. Plaintiffs also failed
to comply with that order. Menendez Decl. ¶ 12 (Defendant did not receive any discovery
responses.)
The court hereby ORDERS plaintiffs to respond to defendant’s motion within
seven (7) days of this order. At minimum, plaintiffs’ response must state (i) why plaintiffs

1

failed to appear for their deposition on November 29, 2017, and (ii) why plaintiffs failed to

2

comply with this court’s December 21, 2017 order compelling discovery. A failure to

3

provide an acceptable response to this order will result in plaintiffs’ case being dismissed

4

with prejudice.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 9, 2018
__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2