Summerfield et al v. Strategic Lending Corporation et al

Filing 121

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO PROSECUTE: Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 11/6/2012 at 10:00 AM. Show Cause Response due by 10/30/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on October 15, 2012. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2012)

1
2

*E-filed: October 15, 2012*

3
4
5
6

NOT FOR CITATION

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ED SUMMERFIELD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11
12

No. C09-02609 HRL
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

v.

13

STRATEGIC LENDING CORP., et al.,

14

Defendants.
____________________________________/

15
16

Plaintiffs Ed, Arthur, and Rita Summerfield (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued defendants

17

Strategic Lending Corporation (“SLC”), Leonardo Agustin, Eric Swensen, and Ali Weichler for

18

violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68. SLC

19

was never served with the complaint and summons. Agustin was served, and default was entered

20

against him. Swensen is subject to a bankruptcy stay. And Weichler moved to dismiss the claims

21

against him.

22

On March 8, 2011, this Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs’ claims against Weichler.

23

Dkt. 99. Thereafter, all parties failed to appear at a case management conference, so the Court

24

issued an order requiring Plaintiffs to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to

25

prosecute. Dkts. 100, 101. In both their response to the order to show cause and at the April 26,

26

2011 show cause hearing, Plaintiffs represented that they wanted time to file a motion for default

27

judgment against Agustin. Dkt Nos. 102, 103. On this basis, the Court discharged the order to show

28

cause, and instructed Plaintiffs to file their motion within two months. Dkt. 103.

1

Over two months later, no action having been made by Plaintiffs, this Court issued another

2

order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. On August 2,

3

2011, counsel of Plaintiffs appeared at the hearing but explained that Plaintiffs had terminated his

4

representation. Counsel subsequently filed a motion for leave to withdraw. The Court granted it

5

and continued the show cause hearing. Dkt. 107. The Court then continued the show cause hearing

6

a number of times in order to allow Plaintiffs adequate time to obtain new counsel. Dkts. 110, 114,

7

116. Plaintiffs eventually retained new counsel and he appeared at the show cause hearing held on

8

January 17, 2012. The Court discharged the order to show cause and set a status conference for

9

February 14, 2012. Dkt. 119.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Counsel for Plaintiffs appeared at the February 14, 2012 conference but now eight months

11

have passed without any action on the case. Accordingly, Plaintiff are ORDERED to appear on

12

November 6, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2, Fifth Floor, United States District Court, 280 S.

13

First Street, San Jose, California, 95113 to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for

14

failure to prosecute. If a voluntary dismissal is filed, the show cause hearing will be automatically

15

vacated.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2012
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

C09-02609 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

Ismael D. Perez: [e-mail]

3

Jonathan Harold Miller: [e-mail]

4

Russell Alan Robinson: [e-mail], [e-mail]

5

Vincent J. Kilduff: [e-mail]

6

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

7
8
9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3