Turner v. National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 2152 et al

Filing 13

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 5/8/2013 02:00 PM. Show Cause Response due by 5/3/2013.. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on April 19, 2013. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/19/2013: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (mpb, COURT STAFF).

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

HAZEL MAE TURNER,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, and DOES 1 through 25,
Defendants.

15
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 12-CV-06285-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO RESPOND TO MOTION
TO DISMISS

Plaintiff Hazel Mae Turner (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint on September 13, 2012 in the

18

Superior Court for the County of San Benito. Defendant National Federation of Federal

19

Employees (“Defendant”) removed this action to the instant court on December 11, 2012. ECF

20

No. 1. On December 19, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 8.1 Pursuant to

21

Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss was due on January 2,

22

2013. As of today, April 19, 2013, Plaintiff has not filed an Opposition or Statement of Non-

23

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is scheduled to be

24

heard on April 25, 2013, at 1:30 p.m.

25

In light of Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, the Court hereby orders

26

Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. This Order

27

1

28

Defendants filed an Amended Notice of Motion on December 20, 2012. ECF No. 9. The
Amended Notice of Motion appears to add the time of the hearing to the first paragraph of the
original Notice of Motion.
1
Case No.: 12-CV-06285-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

1

does not authorize Plaintiff to file an untimely Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

2

Plaintiff has until May 3, 2013 to file a response to this Order to Show Cause. A hearing on this

3

Order to Show Cause is set for May 8, 2013 at 2:00 P.M. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this

4

Order and to appear at the May 8, 2013 hearing will result in dismissal without prejudice for failure

5

to prosecute. The April 25, 2013 hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is VACATED.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: April 19, 2013

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 12-CV-06285-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE