Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Siddqui v. City of Fremont, 16-cv-02012-JSC. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160826b43 Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 25, 2016
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re: Dkt. Nos. 10, 23 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs Abrar Siddqui and Rahila Khan bring this civil action against Defendants the City of Fremont and Leonard Powell as the Community Preservation Manager for City of Fremont. (Dkt. No. 1.) On June 20, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 10.) After Plaintiffs failed to file a response to the motion within the time allotted under
More

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 10, 23

Plaintiffs Abrar Siddqui and Rahila Khan bring this civil action against Defendants the City of Fremont and Leonard Powell as the Community Preservation Manager for City of Fremont. (Dkt. No. 1.) On June 20, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 10.) After Plaintiffs failed to file a response to the motion within the time allotted under Local Rule 7-3, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiffs to file their opposition or statement of non-opposition by July 21, 2016. Plaintiffs failed to do so.

The Court then issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Dkt. No. 19.) Plaintiffs responded to the Order to Show Cause contending that counsel "never received notification that the responsive pleading had been filed" and was thus "unaware of the filing of the motion to dismiss." (Dkt. No. 20 at 1:26-27; 2:4-5.) In response, the Court issued an order noting that as a registered ECF user counsel would have received notice of each filing in this action; however, given that Defendants had not suggested that they had been prejudiced, the Court again reset the briefing schedule on the motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 22.) Five days after the Order resetting the briefing schedule, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' State Law Causes of Action Pursuant to California's Anti-SLAPP statute seeking attorneys' fees and costs. (Dkt. No. 23.)

Plaintiffs thereafter failed to file a response to either motion and the time has now run do so under Local Rule 7-3. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are again ordered to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 991 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiffs shall file a written response to this order by August 29, 2016. Defendants may, but are not required to, file a reply by September 6, 2016. In addition, Plaintiffs and their counsel Brian Kemp Hilliard are ordered to personally appear and show cause in person on September 8, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom F, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, California as to why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Defendants' counsel may contact Court Call at 1-888-882-6878 to make arrangements to appear at the Order to Show Cause hearing by telephone.

If Plaintiffs fail to either respond to this Court's Order or appear on September 8, 2016 this action may be dismissed for failure to prosecute and Plaintiffs' counsel will be referred to the Northern District's Standing Committee on Professional Conduct pursuant to Local Rule 11-6(a).

The Case Management Conference Scheduled for September 1, 2016 is VACATED pending disposition of this Order to Show Cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer