From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gueye v. Wells Fargo Bank

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Jul 16, 2024
3:22-cv-08904-JSC (N.D. Cal. Jul. 16, 2024)

Opinion

3:22-cv-08904-JSC

07-16-2024

MADIABEL GUEYE, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, et al., Defendants.


ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DKT. NO. 52

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, United States District Judge.

On June 12, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 52.) Plaintiff's response to that motion was due June 26, 2024. Plaintiff did not file a response by the June 26 deadline.

As Plaintiff does not have attorney representation, the Court gave Plaintiff one additional week to file a response to Defendants' motion to dismiss, extending Plaintiff's deadline to July 9, 2024. The Court also cautioned Plaintiff that a failure to respond to the motion to dismiss could result in his claims being dismissed.

To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendant's motion. So, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). If Plaintiff does not file a written response by July 24, 2024, the Court will dismiss the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

The Court further VACATES the hearing for the motion to dismiss and the scheduled case management conference on July 25, 2024. If Plaintiff files a written response by July 24, 2024, the Court will reschedule those hearings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Gueye v. Wells Fargo Bank

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Jul 16, 2024
3:22-cv-08904-JSC (N.D. Cal. Jul. 16, 2024)
Case details for

Gueye v. Wells Fargo Bank

Case Details

Full title:MADIABEL GUEYE, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Jul 16, 2024

Citations

3:22-cv-08904-JSC (N.D. Cal. Jul. 16, 2024)