Cabrera v. Oh

Filing 24

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Why Defendant's Answer Should Not Be Stricken. Show Cause Hearing set for 3/19/2013 10:00 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 1/15/2013. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 *E-FILED: January 15, 2013* 3 4 5 6 NOT FOR CITATION 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 7 12 13 14 15 No. C12-04294 HRL JUAN TORRES CABRERA, SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT’S ANSWER SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER HANBUM OH, Defendant. / 16 17 Plaintiff sues under federal and state law for wages that allegedly were earned, but 18 remain unpaid. The complaint was filed on August 15, 2012. Defendant Oh subsequently 19 appeared through attorney Milton Katz, who filed an answer on Oh’s behalf. (See Dkt. No. 10). 20 Shortly after, Katz moved to withdraw as counsel of record, asserting that Oh failed to 21 pay his fees and refused to provide records Katz deemed necessary for the defense of this 22 action. Katz stated that he sent Oh a copy of that motion. The court received no opposition to 23 it. And, Katz’s motion to withdraw was granted, subject to the condition that papers could 24 continue to be served on him for forwarding purposes, unless and until Oh appeared through 25 other counsel or pro se. (See Dkt. No. 15, December 4, 2012 Order). In that same order, this 26 court re-set the initial case management conference for December 18, 2012. Oh was ordered to 27 appear at the conference in person, unless he retained other counsel by that time. 28 1 The court’s December 4, 2012 order was electronically served on Katz for forwarding 2 purposes through the court’s ECF system. Additionally, the court mailed a copy of the order to 3 Oh at the address listed for defendant in Katz’s motion papers. 4 5 6 Plaintiff appeared at the December 18, 2012 initial case management conference. Oh did not. Nor did any attorney appear on his behalf. The court then issued an order directing Oh to appear on January 15, 2013 and show 7 cause why his answer should not be stricken. That order was electronically served on Katz for 8 forwarding purposes, and the court also mailed a copy of the order to Oh. to the court as undeliverable and with no forwarding address. According to plaintiff, mail sent 11 For the Northern District of California On December 26 and 28, 2012, the orders previously mailed to defendant were returned 10 United States District Court 9 to Oh has also been returned to plaintiff’s counsel’s office as undeliverable, and the phone 12 number plaintiff had for Oh is no longer in service. This court is told that plaintiff asked Katz 13 for other contact information for Oh and that Katz said he has no such information. An attorney 14 or party proceeding pro se has an obligation to provide the court with current contact 15 information. CIV. L.R. 3-11(a). The court may, without prejudice, strike an answer when mail 16 directed to an attorney or pro se party is returned to the court as undeliverable and the court fails 17 to receive within 60 days of the return a written communication from the attorney or pro se 18 party indicating a current address. CIV. L.R. 3-11(b). 19 Based on the foregoing, this court will set a second show cause hearing. Defendant 20 Christopher Hanbum Oh shall appear in person before this court on March 19, 2013, 10:00 21 a.m., Courtroom 2, Fifth Floor of the United States District Court, 280 South First Street, San 22 Jose, California and show cause why his answer should not be stricken. Oh is advised that if his 23 answer is stricken, plaintiff has stated an intent to seek entry of default and default judgment 24 against him. 25 26 SO ORDERED. Dated: January 15, 2013 27 HOWARD R. LLOYD 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 1 5:12-cv-04294-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to: 2 Milton Katz , Esq 3 Tomas Eduardo Margain,,,, 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?