Filed: Sep. 06, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 06, 2013
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE VICTOR B. KENTON, Magistrate Judge. On July 11, 2013, Defendant Los Angeles Police Department filed a "Notice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. 1441(a) and 1446(a)." The Los Angeles Police Department is a named Defendant in a civil action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles entitled " Abdelalim Mohammed-El v. Maxim Properties, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC509376. Abdelalim Mohammed-El (hereinafter refer
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE VICTOR B. KENTON, Magistrate Judge. On July 11, 2013, Defendant Los Angeles Police Department filed a "Notice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. 1441(a) and 1446(a)." The Los Angeles Police Department is a named Defendant in a civil action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles entitled " Abdelalim Mohammed-El v. Maxim Properties, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC509376. Abdelalim Mohammed-El (hereinafter referr..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
VICTOR B. KENTON, Magistrate Judge.
On July 11, 2013, Defendant Los Angeles Police Department filed a "Notice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and 1446(a)." The Los Angeles Police Department is a named Defendant in a civil action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles entitled "Abdelalim Mohammed-El v. Maxim Properties, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC509376. Abdelalim Mohammed-El (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff") filed a "Verified Complaint for Forceful Detainer; Violation of Title 18; Quiet Title; Declaratory Judgment and Damages" on May 20, 2013. The First Cause of Action contains allegations against Defendant Los Angeles Police Department for violating Plaintiff's civil rights under the United States Constitution. The Second Cause of Action contains a state law claim for quiet title.
On June 11, 2013, Defendant Los Angeles Police Department was served with Plaintiff's Complaint. Co-Defendants Maxim Properties and Wedgewood Community Fund II, LLC have not been served with Plaintiff's Complaint and therefore Defendant Los Angeles Police Department did not seek their consent for removal to Federal Court.
On July 16, 2013, Defendant Los Angeles Police Department filed a "Certificate of Service of Notice to Adverse Party re: Removal of Action to Federal Court."
On July 18, 2013, Defendant Los Angeles Police Department filed an "Answer of Defendant Los Angeles Police Department to Plaintiff's Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial."
On July 18, 2013, United States District Judge John F. Walter issued a Minute Order setting a Scheduling Conference for September 9, 2013 in Courtroom 16 of the United States Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.
On July 19, 2013, a "Notice of Reference to United States Magistrate Judge" was issued.
On July 19, 2013, a "Notice of Clerical Error" was issued.
On July 31, 2013, the "Notice of Reference" addressed to Plaintiff Abdelalim Mohammed-El at 3675 Grayburn Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90018 was returned undelivered to the Court.
On August 13, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton issued Minute Orders regarding filing Proofs of Service and setting discovery and motion cut-off dates.
On August 23, 2013, Defendant Los Angeles Police Department filed a "Report of Parties Planning Meeting [F.R.Civ.P. 16(b) and 26(f); Local Rule 16-1 and 26-1]," set for hearing on September 9, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 590 at Roybal Federal Building. The hearing date is HEREBY VACATED.
In the Report, Defendants allege that Plaintiff has not responded to repeated attempts at contact and all mail is returned undelivered.
Central District Local Rule 41-6 provides:
"DISMISSAL — FAILURE OF PRO SE PLAINTIFF TO KEEP COURT APPRISED OF CURRENT ADDRESS — A party appearing pro se shall keep the Court and opposing parties apprised of such party's current address and telephone number, if any, and e-mail address, if any. If mail directed by the Clerk to a pro se Plaintiff's address of record is returned undelivered by the Postal Service, and if, within fifteen (15) days of the service date, such plaintiff fails to notify, in writing, the Court and opposing parties of said plaintiff's current address, the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution."
Here, mail addressed to Plaintiff from the Court was returned undelivered by the Postal Service on July 31, 2013. (See Docket No. 11.)
Within 15 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff will notify the Court and opposing party of his current address, and, if applicable, telephone number. Plaintiff is advised that if he fails to apprise the Court of his current address, the Court will issue an Order re Dismissal for want of prosecution.
