Von Haar v. City of Mountain View et al

Filing 44

ORDER to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure to Prosecute. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 9/1/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Mailing)(lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2011)

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
12
13
14
15
16

JODY LYNN VON HAAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, TONY
VIERYA, aka JOSE VIEYRA, TY ZEMLOK,
FERNANDO MALDONADO, Does 1-100,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 10-CV-02995-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

17

This is the second order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to

18

prosecute. On May 4, 2011, the Court held a case management conference at which both Plaintiff

19

and Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear. The Court subsequently issued a Case Management Order

20

that set forth deadlines for the parties to meet and confer and to complete certain discovery

21

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

22

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

23

Court could issue an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to

24

prosecute or why Plaintiff’s counsel and/or Plaintiff should not be sanctioned for failure to comply

25

with a Court order. On May 26, 2011, Defendants filed a notice advising the Court that Plaintiff,

26

by and through her counsel, had failed to comply with the Court’s Case Management Order

27

regarding several discovery obligations. See Defendants’ Report of Plaintiff’s Non-Compliance

28

With Court Order, ECF No. 32. Plaintiff filed no response to Defendants’ notice.
1
Case No.: 10-CV-02995-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

1

On June 6, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be

2

dismissed for failure to prosecute. In the order to show cause, Plaintiff was accused of failing to

3

comply with the following discovery deadlines imposed by the Court in its May 4 Case

4

Management Order:

5

9

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;
5. Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ draft protective order by May 18, 2011, as ordered
by the Court.

10

Plaintiff’s counsel, William B. Look, filed a response in which he explained that counsel

11

and Plaintiff lacked funds to prosecute the case, and that Plaintiff had been seeking new counsel.

12

In response, Defendants filed a statement in which they informed the Court that Plaintiff’s counsel

13

was suspended from the practice of law effective April 4, 2011 for a period of 120 days. In reply,

14

Attorney Look acknowledged the suspension, but claimed that it had not yet taken effect. Based on

15

the representations made by Attorney Look at the August 31, 2011 case management conference,

16

and the public records available on the website of the State Bar of California, it appears that the

17

suspension is not yet in effect, although the suspension is to begin on September 10, 2011.

6
7

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

18

Additionally, Attorney Look was ordered to file a motion to withdraw by July 15, 2011,

19

which he has failed to do. See Order Regarding Status of Plaintiff’s Counsel, July 2, 2011, ECF

20

No. 38. For these, and other reasons, Attorney Look is the subject of an order to show cause why

21

sanctions should not be imposed that has been filed concurrently with this Order.

22

In light of the issues that have arisen with Plaintiff’s counsel, and in an abundance of

23

caution, the Court determines that it is prudent to issue a second order to show cause why this case

24

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The three orders to show cause referenced in this

25

document are to be served, electronically and by mail, on Judy Von Haar: this order to show cause

26

why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute; the June 6 order to show cause why

27

the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute; as well as the order to show cause why

28

sanctions should not be imposed on Attorney Look, filed concurrently with this Order. Moreover,
2
Case No.: 10-CV-02995-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

1

Attorney Look was ordered to contact Jody Von Haar and explain to her his status with the State

2

Bar, and that the Court has issued an order to show cause as to why this case should not be

3

dismissed for failure to prosecute.

4

Plaintiff Jody Von Haar, either appearing pro se or through newly obtained counsel, shall

5

file a written response by September 15, 2011. A hearing on the matter is set for September 22,

6

2011 at 1:30, in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: September 1, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

Case No.: 10-CV-02995-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED