Minshall v. Network Appliance, Inc. et al

Filing 30

ORDER to Show Cause, Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 3/15/2012 01:30 PM. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 2/14/2012. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

CONRAD MINSHALL,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
NETWORK APPLIANCE, INC. EMPLOYEE
BENEFIT PLAN, and STANDARD
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.

17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:10-CV-04745-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Conrad Minshall filed a complaint on October 20, 2010, seeking benefits under an

20

ERISA long term disability plan. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on January

21

14, 2011. ECF No. 8. Defendants filed an answer to the FAC on February 18, 2011. ECF No. 11.

22

At the initial case management conference a case schedule was set, including a motions for

23

adjudication hearing date of January 12, 2012. Case Management Order, ECF No. 15. The parties

24

requested a continuance of the January 12, 2012 hearing date. ECF No. 24. In response, on

25

November 4, 2011, the briefing schedule on the motions for adjudication was reset as follows:

26
27
28

Opening briefs due February 9, 2012.
Opposition briefs due February 23, 2012.
Reply briefs due March 1, 2012
Hearing Date is March 15, 2012.

1
Case No.: 10-cv-04745-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

See ECF No. 25, see also Case Management Order, November 30, 2011, ECF No. 29. The

2

deadline to file motions for adjudication has passed, and neither party has filed a motion pursuant

3

to the Court’s scheduling order. Accordingly, the March 15, 2012 hearing date is VACATED.

4

The Court has not heard from the parties since the November 30, 2011 case management

5

conference. Indeed, neither party has filed anything indicating whether they have reached a

6

settlement, or whether Plaintiff intends to pursue this case. Therefore, the Court hereby ORDERS

7

Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. This Order

8

does not authorize either party to file untimely motions for adjudication.

9

Plaintiff has until February 23, 2012 to file either a stipulated dismissal or a response to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

this Order to Show Cause. A hearing on this Order to Show Cause is set for Thursday, March 15,

11

2012 at 1:30 P.M. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Order and to appear at the March 15, 2012

12

hearing will result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: February 14, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 10-cv-04745-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE