HILL v. T.J. MAXX OF CA, LLC, 17-cv-00847-MEJ. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170503b21
Visitors: 12
Filed: May 02, 2017
Latest Update: May 02, 2017
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE MARIA-ELENA JAMES , Magistrate Judge . On April 13, 2017, Defendant T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, with a noticed hearing date of May 25, 2017. Dkt. No. 13. Responses were due April 27, 2017; however, Plaintiff Teresa Hill failed to file an opposition pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7. Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the motion hearing and ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and fail
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE MARIA-ELENA JAMES , Magistrate Judge . On April 13, 2017, Defendant T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, with a noticed hearing date of May 25, 2017. Dkt. No. 13. Responses were due April 27, 2017; however, Plaintiff Teresa Hill failed to file an opposition pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7. Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the motion hearing and ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failu..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
MARIA-ELENA JAMES, Magistrate Judge.
On April 13, 2017, Defendant T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, with a noticed hearing date of May 25, 2017. Dkt. No. 13. Responses were due April 27, 2017; however, Plaintiff Teresa Hill failed to file an opposition pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7. Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the motion hearing and ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. Plaintiff shall file a declaration by May 9, 2017. If a responsive declaration is filed, the Court shall either issue an order based on the declaration or conduct a hearing on May 25, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. Notice is hereby provided that failure to file a written response will be deemed an admission that Plaintiff does not intend to prosecute, and the case will be dismissed without prejudice. Thus, it is imperative that the Court receive a written response by the deadline above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
