SAELEE v. BSI FIN. SERVS., 2:14-cv-2625-TLN-AC. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20141224775
Visitors: 10
Filed: Dec. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2014
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge. Both plaintiffs in this case are proceeding pro se. Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is currently on the court's Law & Motion calendar for February 18, 2015. However, the court's most recent order (ECF No. 10) was returned as undeliverable to both plaintiffs. It thus appears that plaintiffs have failed to keep the court advised of their current address, although required to do so by E.D. Cal. R. 183(b) (authorizing dismissal for lack of prosecut
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge. Both plaintiffs in this case are proceeding pro se. Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is currently on the court's Law & Motion calendar for February 18, 2015. However, the court's most recent order (ECF No. 10) was returned as undeliverable to both plaintiffs. It thus appears that plaintiffs have failed to keep the court advised of their current address, although required to do so by E.D. Cal. R. 183(b) (authorizing dismissal for lack of prosecuti..
More
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
Both plaintiffs in this case are proceeding pro se. Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is currently on the court's Law & Motion calendar for February 18, 2015. However, the court's most recent order (ECF No. 10) was returned as undeliverable to both plaintiffs. It thus appears that plaintiffs have failed to keep the court advised of their current address, although required to do so by E.D. Cal. R. 183(b) (authorizing dismissal for lack of prosecution if the address is not updated within 63 days).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on defendants' motion is CONTINUED to March 11, 2015, giving plaintiffs additional time to update the court with their address, and also to file an opposition, or a statement of no opposition, to defendants' motion. Plaintiffs are cautioned that failure to comply with the local rules, including Rule 183(b), or to timely respond to the motion to dismiss, will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Source: Leagle
