O'KEEFE v. TESLA MOTORS, 3:16-cv-07179-WHO. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170425893
Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 24, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 24, 2017
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Re: Dkt. No. 29 WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . On April 3, 2017, I issued an order to show cause directing plaintiff to respond to defendants' motion to dismiss by April 17, 2017. 1 Dkt. No. 29. Plaintiff has not responded to defendants' motion, nor has he otherwise responded to the order to show cause. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Re: Dkt. No. 29 WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . On April 3, 2017, I issued an order to show cause directing plaintiff to respond to defendants' motion to dismiss by April 17, 2017. 1 Dkt. No. 29. Plaintiff has not responded to defendants' motion, nor has he otherwise responded to the order to show cause. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS S..
More
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Re: Dkt. No. 29
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge.
On April 3, 2017, I issued an order to show cause directing plaintiff to respond to defendants' motion to dismiss by April 17, 2017.1 Dkt. No. 29. Plaintiff has not responded to defendants' motion, nor has he otherwise responded to the order to show cause.
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Defendants filed their motion on February 22, 2017. Dkt. No. 14. His response was initially due on March 8, 2017, and then moved to March 20, 2017, after the case was reassigned to me. Dkt. No. 25.
Source: Leagle
