Ferchau v. CitiMortgage, Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER to Show Cause. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on August 6, 2013. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2013)

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
12
13
14
15
16
17

CHARLES FERCHAU,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; and DOES 1-100,
Inclusive,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 13-CV-0941-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

This action was removed from the Santa Clara County Superior Court on March 1, 2013.

18

ECF No. 1. On March 8, 2013, Defendant CitiMortgage filed a motion to dismiss, ECF No. 6. On

19

April 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 9.

20

On June 6, 2013, Defendant CitiMortgage filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First

21

Amended Complaint, alleging that the First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim pursuant to

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 14.

23

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss was due

24

on June 20, 2013. On July 30, 2013, Defendant CitiMortgage filed a notice of non-opposition,

25

noting that Plaintiff had failed to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss and requesting that the

26

Court issue a decision based on the moving papers. As of today, August 6, 2013, Plaintiff has not

27

filed an opposition or statement of nonopposition to this motion.

28
1
Case No.: 13-CV-0941-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

1

A Case Management Conference was scheduled for August 7, 2013. On August 4, 2013,

2

after no Joint Case Management Statement had been filed, the Court issued an Order directing the

3

parties to file a Joint Case Management Statement by 5:00 p.m on August 5, 2013. ECF No. 22.

4

On August 5, 2013, Defendant CitiMortgage filed a Case Management Statement, stating that

5

“efforts to reach counsel for Plaintiff Charles Ferchau . . . have been unsuccessful.” ECF No. 23.

6

The Court hereby VACATES the Case Management Conference set for August 7, 2013 and
orders Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. This

8

Order does not authorize Plaintiff to file an untimely opposition to the motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff

9

has until August 21, 2013 to file a response to this Order to Show Cause. A hearing on this Order

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

to Show Cause is set for August 28, 2013 at 2:00 P.M. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Order

11

and to appear at the August 28, 2013 hearing will result in dismissal with prejudice for failure to

12

prosecute.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: August 6, 2013

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No.: 13-CV-0941-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE