Bell et al v. Bimbo Bakeries, USA et al

Filing 57

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed for failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with 43 the Court's Order; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs show cause within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order why their complaint should not be finally dismissed for failure to prosecute. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 10/26/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1

9

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

CHARLES BELL, et al.,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13

Case No. 2:15-CV-2410-KJD-GWF

BIMBO BAKERIES, USA, et al.,

14

ORDER

Defendants.

15
16

On June 27, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, but granted Plaintiffs

17

leave to file an amended complaint to cure deficiencies in the complaint. The amended complaint

18

was due by July 11, 2016. Instead, Plaintiffs filed an ill-advised interlocutory appeal. Furthermore,

19

on June 20, 2016, the Clerk of Court notified Plaintiffs that Defendant Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. De

20

C.V. had not been served the summons and complaint in compliance with Rule 4(m). That order set a

21

deadline of July 20, 2016 to file proof of service and notified Plaintiffs that automatic dismissal

22

would result if service had not been made. The same day that Plaintiffs filed the Notice of Appeal

23

(#46), July 20, 2016, Plaintiffs also filed a motion to extend time to serve the summons and

24

complaint to Grupo Bimbo. However, this was nine (9) days after the deadline to file an amended

25

complaint. Plaintiffs had already failed to meet that deadline. The Court denied the motion without

26

1

prejudice on August 5, 2016, noting that case was on appeal and notifying Plaintiffs that they could

2

refile the motion after the Court of Appeals rule on Plaintiffs’ interlocutory appeal.

3

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Plaintiffs’ appeal on December 12, 2016

4

noting that a plaintiff who has been given leave to amend may not file a notice of appeal simply

5

because he does not choose to file an amended complaint. Mandate (#52) issued on January 3, 2017

6

and Order on Mandate (#54) was entered by this Court on January 12, 2017.

7

Since that date Plaintiffs have taken no proceeding of record. They failed to file their

8

amended complaint. They failed to file a motion to extend the time to effect service pursuant to Rule

9

4. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed in accordance with Court’s prior order (#43) which

10

granted leave to file an amended complaint. However, the Court will refrain from entering final

11

judgment until Plaintiffs show cause within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order why the

12

complaint should not be finally dismissed for failure to prosecute in accordance with Local Rule 41-1

13

and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

14
15
16
17
18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed for failure to
file an amended complaint in accordance with the Court’s Order (#43);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs show cause within fourteen (14) days of the entry
of this order why their complaint should not be finally dismissed for failure to prosecute.
DATED this 26th day of October 2017.

19
20
21
22

_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
2