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

Filing 44

ORDER. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on October 15, 2012. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

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 DISMISSING DEFENDANT
PACCAR, INC.

On July 23, 2012, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why this Case Should Not Be

21

Dismissed For Failure to Prosecute. See ECF No. 33 (“OSC”). Plaintiff Advanced Engineering

22

Solution, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a response to the OSC requesting: (1) dismissal of this case without

23

prejudice due to Plaintiff’s financial inability to pursue litigation; or, alternatively, (2) transfer of

24

this case to the United States District Court, Western Division of Texas, Austin Division (“Texas

25

Court”), where Plaintiff is the defendant in a case Plaintiff alleges is related to the instant suit; or,

26

alternatively, (3) that the Court allow Plaintiff 60 additional days to seek and obtain representation.

27

See ECF No. 36 (“Response”) at 2.

28
1
Case No.: 12-CV-00986-LHK
ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT PACCAR, INC.

1

A hearing regarding the OSC was held on August 30, 2012. Following the hearing, the

2

Court issued an order (“Order”) dismissing, without prejudice, Plaintiffs’ claims against

3

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

4

Timm pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).1 See ECF No. 43. The Court,

5

however, declined to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Paccar, Inc. (“Paccar”) for

6

reasons set forth in the Order. Id.
The Court additionally ordered Plaintiff to retain new counsel by October 3, 2012. The

7

Court further ordered that, by October 3, 2012, new counsel must: (1) file a notice of appearance;

9

(2) file a status report advising the Court of how Plaintiff intends to proceed with the litigation; and

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

(3) meet and confer with counsel for Paccar pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Id.

11

The Court stated that if these tasks were not accomplished by October 3, 2012, Plaintiff’s claims

12

against Paccar would be dismissed with prejudice. Id. As of today, October 15, 2012, Plaintiff has

13

failed to meet any of these deadlines. For example, the Court has not received a notice of

14

appearance from Plaintiff’s new counsel. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not filed a status report

15

advising the Court of how Plaintiff intends to proceed with the litigation. Plaintiff also has not

16

informed the Court that Plaintiff has met and conferred with counsel for Paccar pursuant to Federal

17

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Paccar are DISMISSED

18

WITH PREJUDICE. The case management conference set for October 24, 2012, at 2:00 p.m is

19

hereby VACATED. The Clerk shall close the file.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: October 15, 2012

___________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) provides that a “plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by
filing… a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for
summary judgment.
2
Case No.: 12-CV-00986-LHK
ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT PACCAR, INC.