VAN PHAM v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED, 16-cv-00487-EMC. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160503b45
Visitors: 8
Filed: May 02, 2016
Latest Update: May 02, 2016
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Plaintiff Nhan Van Pham has filed suit against Defendants Cathay Pacific Airways Limited ("Cathay") and Alinah Binte Jaffar (apparently, erroneously sued as Diamond Jaffas), asserting claims for defamation, unlawful confinement/false arrest, and negligence. After the case was removed from state to federal court, Ms. Jaffar filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and Cathay filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Plaintiff Nhan Van Pham has filed suit against Defendants Cathay Pacific Airways Limited ("Cathay") and Alinah Binte Jaffar (apparently, erroneously sued as Diamond Jaffas), asserting claims for defamation, unlawful confinement/false arrest, and negligence. After the case was removed from state to federal court, Ms. Jaffar filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and Cathay filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. ..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Nhan Van Pham has filed suit against Defendants Cathay Pacific Airways Limited ("Cathay") and Alinah Binte Jaffar (apparently, erroneously sued as Diamond Jaffas), asserting claims for defamation, unlawful confinement/false arrest, and negligence. After the case was removed from state to federal court, Ms. Jaffar filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and Cathay filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Mr. Pham's oppositions to the motions were due on April 29, 2016. No oppositions were filed on that day.
Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the May 26, 2016, hearing on Defendants' motions. Mr. Pham is hereby ordered to show cause as to why his complaint should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to oppose and/or failure to prosecute. Mr. Pham shall also address, in his response to this order to show cause, the substantive arguments raised by Defendants in their respective motions.
Mr. Pham's response shall be filed within two weeks of the date of this order. Mr. Pham is forewarned that a failure to timely file a response to this order to show cause shall result in a dismissal of this case with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
