Vu et al v. Washington Mutual Bank FA et al

Filing 11

REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on March 14, 2011. (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2011)

Vu et al v. Washington Mutual Bank FA et al

Doc. 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
3 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

KIM HA VU, et al.,

) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FA, et ) al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ )

Case No.: C 10-04000 PSG REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on September 7, 2010. The parties were required to file a case management statement on November 16, 2010 and to appear for a case management conference on November 23, 2010.1 Also, by November 16, 2010, the parties were required either to file written consent to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge or to request reassignment to a district judge.2 None of the parties filed a case management statement or consented or declined magistrate judge jurisdiction, and on November 22, 2010 the Clerk rescheduled the case management conference for January 4, 2011.3 On January 4, 2011, none of the parties appeared at

See 9/10/10 Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (Docket See Civ. L.R. 73-1(a)(1). See 11/22/10 Clerks Notice (Docket No. 6). ORDER, page 1
Dockets.Justia.com

No. 3).
2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the case management conference. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, the court may dismiss the action.4 On February 16, 2011, the court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than March 2, 2011 why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. To date, Plaintiff has not responded whatsoever. Accordingly, the above-captioned action shall be reassigned to a U.S. District Judge with a report and recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dated: March 14, 2011

PAUL S. GREWAL United States Magistrate Judge

4

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). ORDER, page 2

1 2

Notice of this filing was automatically mailed to counsel via the court's Electronic Case Filing system. A copy of this filing was mailed to:

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Chambers of U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER, page 3 Dated: Huy Vu 18900 Newsom Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Kim Ha Vu 18900 Newsom Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014