Pope v. San Joaquin Valley National Cemetery

Filing 8

Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 2/21/2014. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

PRINCESS POPE,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:13-CV-05194-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

16
Plaintiff Princess Pope filed her complaint in state court on October 9, 2013, which
17
Defendants then removed to federal court on November 7, 2013. See ECF No. 1. On February 5,
18
2014, Defendant United States filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for
19
Summary Judgment. See ECF No. 5. In its motion, Defendant contends that Plaintiff has failed to
20
exhaust administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act, that Plaintiff has failed to
21
prosecute, and that Plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence to support her claims of tort liability. See id.
22
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or in
23
the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, was due on February 19, 2014. As of today,
24
February 21, 2014, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to
25
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment.
26
Moreover, along with the Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary
27
Judgment, counsel for Defendant submitted a declaration stating that on November 14, 2013,
28
1
Case No.: 13-CV-05194-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

1

counsel for Defendant had served initial discovery requests on Plaintiff, and served a notice of

2

deposition of Plaintiff for February 5, 2014. See ECF No. 7 ¶¶ 4-5; see id., Ex. B-C. On January

3

28, 2014, counsel for Defendant sent Plaintiff an email reminding her of the upcoming deposition.

4

See id. ¶ 6. Plaintiff did not respond to the discovery request or appear at the deposition. See id. ¶¶

5

7-8.

6

In light of Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests and Plaintiff’s

7

failure to timely oppose Defendant’s Motion, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this

8

case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

9

This Order does not authorize Plaintiff to file an untimely opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, or

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff has until March 7, 2014 to file a

11

response to this Order to Show Cause. A hearing on this Order to Show Cause is set for

12

Wednesday, March 19, 2014 at 2 p.m. The Court further CONTINUES the Initial Case

13

Management Conference set for March 5, 2014, at 2 p.m. to March 19, 2014, at 2 p.m. Plaintiff’s

14

failure to respond to this Order and to appear at the March 19, 2014 hearing will result in dismissal

15

with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: February 21, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No.: 13-CV-05194-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE