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

Filing 18

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on June 21, 2013. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2013)

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

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 DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

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 April 19, 2013, Plaintiff had not filed an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition

23

to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was scheduled to be heard on

24

April 25, 2013.

25

In light of Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, on April 19, 2013, the

26

Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to

27

1

28

Defendant 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 DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

1

prosecute. ECF No. 13 (“OSC”). In the OSC, the Court advised Plaintiff that Plaintiff was not

2

authorized to file an untimely Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The Court ordered

3

that Plaintiff file a response by May 3, 2013. The Court set a hearing on the OSC for May 8, 2013.

4

The Court also advised Plaintiff that if Plaintiff failed to respond to the OSC and failed to appear at

5

the May 8, 2013 hearing, Plaintiff’s case would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to

6

prosecute.

7

On May 6, 2013, Plaintiff emailed defense counsel to request that the Court continue the
OSC hearing 3 weeks because Plaintiff needed to obtain permission in order to leave Kern County

9

and attend the hearing. On May 6, 2013, Defense counsel informed the Court of this request. Also

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

on May 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a notice requesting a continuance of the OSC hearing. See ECF No.

11

16. The Court thus continued the OSC hearing from May 8, 2013 to June 19, 2013. See ECF No.

12

15. The Court also extended Plaintiff’s deadline to file a response from May 3, 2013 to June 12,

13

2013. See id.

14

Plaintiff nevertheless failed to respond to the OSC. Plaintiff also did not appear at the June

15

19, 2013 OSC hearing. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the OSC and failure to appear at

16

the OSC hearing, the Court hereby DISMISSES Plaintiff’s case without prejudice for failure to

17

prosecute. The Clerk shall close the file.2

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated: June 21, 2013

20

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT.
2

Case No.: 12-CV-06285-LHK
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE