In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation

Filing 178

ORDER to Show Cause Why Case No. 5:12-CV-01262-LHK Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 7/23/2012. (lhklc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2012) Modified on 7/23/2012 (lhklc1S, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

SAN JOSE DIVISION
OSSIE SANTIAGO, an individual California
resident, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated,
v.

Plaintiff,

INTUIT, INC., a Delaware corporation;
GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.

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

Case No.: 5:12-CV-01262-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Ossie Santiago filed a complaint against Intuit, Inc. (“Intuit ), Google, Inc.

19

(“Google”), and Does 1 through 100, inclusive (collectively “Defendants”) on March 14, 2012. See

20

ECF No. 1. On April 20, 2012, the case was reassigned to the undersigned judge. ECF No. 6. On

21

April 25, 2012, the Court related the above captioned case to In re: High Tech Employee Antitrust

22

Litigation, 11-CV-2509-LHK. ECF No. 11. On April 25, 2012, Intuit filed a motion to compel

23

arbitration and to dismiss, or in the alternative stay proceedings. ECF No. 8. Pursuant to Civil

24

Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition to Intuit’s motion was due on May 9, 2012. On June 1,

25

2012, Google filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

26

Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition to

27

Google’s motion was due on June 15, 2012. On June 22, 2012, Google filed a notice Plaintiff’s

28
1

Case No.: 12-CV-01262-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

1

non-opposition to Google’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to

2

either Google’s or Intuit’s motions, even though the deadline to oppose both motions has passed.

3

The hearing on Google’s and Intuit’s motions and the case management conference set for

4

September 13, 2012, are VACATED. The Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this

5

case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. This Order does not authorize Plaintiff to file

6

an untimely opposition to Defendants’ motions. Plaintiff has until August 13, 2012, to file a

7

response to this Order to Show Cause. A hearing on this Order to Show Cause is set for August

8

30, 2012, at 1:30 P.M. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause and to appear at

9

the August 30, 2012 hearing will result in dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: July 23, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No.: 12-CV-01262-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE