Von Haar v. City of Mountain View et al

Filing 33

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Why the Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute. Show Cause Response due by 6/20/2011. Signed by Judge Koh on 6/6/2011. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

JODY LYNN VON HAAR,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, TONY
VIERYA, aka JOSE VIEYRA, TY ZEMLOK,
FERNANDO MALDONADO, Does 1-100,

15

Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 10-CV-02995-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On May 4, 2011, the Court held a Case Management Conference. Although Plaintiff joined

18

in the Case Management Statement filed by Defendants, neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s counsel

19

appeared at the Case Management Conference. In addition, counsel for Defendants indicated at the

20

Case Management Conference that she had difficulty meeting and conferring with Plaintiff’s

21

counsel regarding this case. The Court subsequently issued a Case Management Order that set

22

forth deadlines for the parties to meet and confer and to complete certain discovery obligations.

23

See Minute Entry and Case Management Order, May 4, 2011, ECF No. 30. In its order, the Court

24

advised Plaintiff that if she failed to comply with the court-ordered deadlines, the Court could issue

25

an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or why

26

Plaintiff’s counsel and/or Plaintiff should not be sanctioned for failure to comply with a Court

27

order.

28
1
Case No.: 10-CV-02995-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

On May 26, 2011, Defendants filed a notice advising the Court that Plaintiff had failed to

2

comply with the Court’s Case Management Order. See Defendants’ Report of Plaintiff’s Non-

3

Compliance With Court Order, ECF No. 32. Defendants claim that Plaintiff has failed to comply

4

with the deadlines set forth in the Court’s May 4, 2011 Order, as follows:

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

(1) Plaintiff’s counsel failed to provide Plaintiff’s dates of availability for deposition by May
11, 2011, as ordered by the Court;
(2) Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ request to meet and confer by May 13, 2011, as
ordered by the Court;
(3) Plaintiff failed to produce initial disclosures by May 18, 2011, as ordered by the Court;
(4) Plaintiff failed to exchange documents designated in the initial disclosures by May 25,
2011, as ordered by the Court; and
(5) Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ draft protective order by May 18, 2011, as ordered
by the Court.

11

Plaintiff has not filed any response to Defendants’ report of non-compliance. It therefore appears

12

that Plaintiff has abandoned litigation of this case. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS

13

Plaintiff to show cause why the instant action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure

14

to prosecute. Plaintiff shall file a written response by June 20, 2011. If Plaintiff fails to timely

15

respond, the Court will dismiss the entire action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: June 6, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 10-CV-02995-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE