Opinion
23-cv-05201-WHO
01-22-2024
WILLIAM FLOYD CRESSY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
RE: DKT. NOS. 50, 53, 54
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The main defendant in this case, the California Department of Transportation, moved to dismiss and plaintiffs failed to oppose or otherwise respond to that motion. I issued an Order to Show Cause warning plaintiffs that they needed to oppose or otherwise respond to that motion by January 12, 2024, or their case would be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Dkt. No. 51.
In the meantime, defendant City of Santa Rosa filed a motion to dismiss, which plaintiffs were required to oppose or otherwise respond to by January 5, 2024. Dkt. No. 53. Defendant County of Sonoma also filed a motion to dismiss, which plaintiffs were required to oppose or otherwise respond to by January 9, 2024. Dkt. No. 54.
As of the date of this Order, other than one named plaintiff who filed a notice of voluntary dismissal (Dkt. No. 56), no plaintiff has opposed or responded to any of the motions to dismiss.
Therefore, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(b). The Clerk shall close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.