Advanced Engineering Solution, Inc v. Paccar, Inc. et al

Filing 33

ORDER to Show Cause Why Case 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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
ADVANCED ENGINEERING SOLUTION,
INC., a California corporation,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
PACCAR, INC., a Delaware corporation;
)
KENWORTH TRUCK COMPANY, an
)
unknown entity; KALYPSO, INC., a
)
corporation; PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY )
CORPORATION, a Massachusetts corporation; )
ANDREW TIMM, an individual; JORDAN
)
REYNOLDS, an individual; and DOES 1
)
through 100, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 5:12-CV-00986-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Advanced Engineering Solution, Inc. filed a complaint against Paccar, Inc.,

21

Kenworth Truck Company, Kalypso Inc., Parametric Technology Corporation, Andrew Timm,

22

Jordan Reynolds, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive (collectively, “Defendants”) on June 1, 2011.

23

See ECF No. 1. On April 9, 2012, the case was reassigned to the undersigned judge. ECF No. 17.

24

On May 11, 2012, Defendant Andrew Timm filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to

25

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). See ECF No. 28. Pursuant to Civil Local

26

Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss was due on May 25, 2012. Plaintiff has

27

not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendant Timm’s motion.

28
1

Case No.: 12-CV-00986-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

1

The hearing on Defendant Timm’s motion and the case management conference set for

2

September 6, 2012 are VACATED. The Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this

3

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

4

an untimely opposition to Defendant Timm’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has until August 13,

5

2012, to file a response to this Order to Show Cause. A hearing on this Order to Show Cause is set

6

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

7

to appear at the August 30, 2012 hearing will result in dismissal with prejudice for failure to

8

prosecute.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated: July 23, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No.: 12-CV-00986-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE