Filed: Aug. 07, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 07, 2014
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge. Before the court is defendant USF Reddaway, Inc.'s ("Reddaway") motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Doc. #95. 1 Plaintiff James Burke ("Burke") did not file an opposition. On July 2, 2012, Burke filed a complaint against Reddaway in the state of California alleging a single cause of action for negligence. Doc. #1, Exhibit A. On September 5, 2012, the California court determined that Burke was incompetent and granted the application of Burke's daug
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge. Before the court is defendant USF Reddaway, Inc.'s ("Reddaway") motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Doc. #95. 1 Plaintiff James Burke ("Burke") did not file an opposition. On July 2, 2012, Burke filed a complaint against Reddaway in the state of California alleging a single cause of action for negligence. Doc. #1, Exhibit A. On September 5, 2012, the California court determined that Burke was incompetent and granted the application of Burke's daugh..
More
ORDER
LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.
Before the court is defendant USF Reddaway, Inc.'s ("Reddaway") motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Doc. #95.1 Plaintiff James Burke ("Burke") did not file an opposition.
On July 2, 2012, Burke filed a complaint against Reddaway in the state of California alleging a single cause of action for negligence. Doc. #1, Exhibit A. On September 5, 2012, the California court determined that Burke was incompetent and granted the application of Burke's daughter, Alyssa Burke, to pursue his claims as his Guardian ad litem ("GAL").
After this action was transferred to this court, the court Burke's counsel's motion to withdraw. See Doc. #90. At that time, the court ordered Burke and his GAL to find new counsel before June 27, 2014.2 Id. Further, Burke was notified in that order that failure to obtain new counsel by June 27, 2014, would result in dismissal of this action. Id. However, Burke has failed to find new counsel and has failed to respond in any way to Reddaway's motion. Therefore, the court shall grant Reddaway's motion and dismiss this action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the court's order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. #95) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. #1, Exhibit A) is DISMISSED in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
