Opinion
4:23-cv-00770-YGR
07-25-2023
Derek L. Mobley, for and on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Workday, Inc., Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
RE: DKT. NO. 19
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
The Court is in receipt of plaintiff Derek L. Mobley (“Mobley)'s request for an extension of his deadline to file a response to defendant Workday, Inc.'s motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 19.) On page four of that request, plaintiff's counsel, Roderick T. Cooks, represents that his pro hac vice application to practice in this District is “pending.” (Id.)
Attorney Lee D. Winston is also listed on the motion, but he is not a signatory to it. Mr. Winston has also not entered an appearance in this case.
The Court notes that Mr. Cooks has not filed a pro hac vice application in this action. Further, in contravention of Local Rule 3-4(a), Mr. Cooks fails to include his state bar number on the first page of his filing.
The Court further notes that plaintiff miscaptioned his motion. This Court sits in Oakland, California, not San Jose.
Because Mr. Cooks has not demonstrated he is licensed to practice in this District and in the interests of judicial efficiency, the Court ORDERS plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff shall e-file a response to this order by no later than Monday, July 31, 2023.
Briefing is hereby SUSPENDED pending plaintiff's response to this order.
It Is So Ordered.