Durham v. City Of Palo Alto et al

Filing 45

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on January 23, 2013. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2013)

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
17

CAROL DURHAM,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF PALO ALTO; CRAIG LEE; DOES 1 )
to 10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

Case No.: 12-CV-0666-LHK
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH
PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Carol Durham (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint on October 25, 2011, in the

18

Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara. Defendants removed this action to the instant court

19

on February 10, 2012. ECF No. 1. On November 1, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary

20

judgment. ECF No. 32. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to

21

dismiss was due on November 15, 2012. Plaintiff did not file (and, to date, has not filed) an

22

opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

23

In light of Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary

24

Judgment, on December 13, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should

25

not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 40 (“OSC”). The Court ordered that Plaintiff

26

file a response to the OSC by January 7, 2013. The Court set a hearing on the OSC for January 23,

27

2013 at 2:00 P.M. The Court also advised Plaintiff that if Plaintiff failed to respond to the OSC

28
1
Case No.: 11-CV-0666-LHK
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

1

and failed to appear at the January 23, 2013 hearing, Plaintiff’s case would be dismissed with

2

prejudice for failure to prosecute.

3

Plaintiff did not respond to the OSC. Plaintiff also did not appear at the January 23, 2013

4

hearing. Rather, Plaintiff’s ex-husband Mr. William McGee, who is not an attorney, attended the

5

hearing. The Court notes that this is not the first time Mr. McGee has appeared on Plaintiff’s

6

behalf. Indeed, Plaintiff has missed two of the three case management conferences in this case,

7

and Mr. McGee has appeared in her stead. See ECF Nos. 20, 28. At the OSC hearing, Mr. McGee

8

stated that Plaintiff wishes to withdraw from the case due to stress.

9

In light of Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the OSC and failure to appear at the OSC hearing,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the Court hereby DISMISSES Plaintiff’s case with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk

11

shall close the file.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: January 23, 2013

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-0666-LHK
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE