Heinrich v. DiTech Financial, LLC, 1:18-cv-00664-DAD-SKO. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190606e47
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jun. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 04, 2019
Summary: ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER Fourteen-Day Deadline DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . On March 1, 2019, the court issued an order that, among other things, granted defendant MRO Investment Inc.'s motion to dismiss with leave to amend, and directed plaintiffs to file within thirty days either an amended complaint or a notice indicating their willingness to proceed only on the remaining claims.
Summary: ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER Fourteen-Day Deadline DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . On March 1, 2019, the court issued an order that, among other things, granted defendant MRO Investment Inc.'s motion to dismiss with leave to amend, and directed plaintiffs to file within thirty days either an amended complaint or a notice indicating their willingness to proceed only on the remaining claims. (..
More
ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER
Fourteen-Day Deadline
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
On March 1, 2019, the court issued an order that, among other things, granted defendant MRO Investment Inc.'s motion to dismiss with leave to amend, and directed plaintiffs to file within thirty days either an amended complaint or a notice indicating their willingness to proceed only on the remaining claims. (Doc. No. 31 at 11.) Far more than thirty days have passed, and plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint or otherwise communicated with the court.
Accordingly, plaintiffs are hereby ordered to show cause in writing within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this order why sanctions should not be imposed due to their failure to prosecute and failure to obey the court's March 1, 2019 order. Plaintiffs may discharge this order to show cause by either filing an amended complaint or notifying the court of their willingness to proceed only on the remaining claims. Plaintiffs are cautioned that failure to appropriately respond to this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including possible dismissal of this action. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
