Opinion
Case No. 17-cv-07148-MEJ
04-02-2018
LISA PRONZINI, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant.
ORDER FOR CLERK OF COURT TO REASSIGN ACTION;
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Defendant removed the action to this Court on December 15, 2017. Dkt. No. 1.
In its Initial Case Management Scheduling Order, the Court ordered the parties to file a Joint Case Management Conference (CMC) Statement by March 8, 2018, and to attend an Initial CMC on March 15, 2018. Dkt. No. 3 ("Counsel must comply with the case schedule listed below unless the Court otherwise orders."); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a); Civ. L.R. 16-9(a). The Court also ordered the parties to meet and confer no later than February 22, 2018 regarding certain topics, and to file ADR Certifications and either a Stipulation to ADR Process or a Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference. See Sched. Order.
On March 15, 2018, Defendant filed a separate CMC statement, which is supported by a declaration of counsel. See Def.'s CMC Stmt., Dkt. No. 10; Young Decl., Dkt. No. 10-1. Counsel declares that between December 18, 2017 and February 26, 2018, Defendant made four attempts to engage Plaintiff's counsel in the preparation of a Joint CMC Statement and the completion of the Notice of Need for ADR Conference. Young Decl. ¶¶ 6-9 & A-D. Defendant represents Plaintiff's counsel never responded. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff did not file a separate CMC statement by the March 8, 2018 deadline for doing so, and did not otherwise respond to Defendant's CMC statement. See Docket. The Court vacated the CMC and ordered Plaintiff to show cause no later than March 30, 2018 why she should not be sanctioned for failing to abide by this Court's Scheduling Order and failing to confer with Defendant to develop a Joint CMC Statement. See OSC, Dkt. No. 11; Cert. of Serv., Dkt. No. 12. The Court admonished Plaintiff that failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause may result in the imposition of sanctions, including monetary sanctions or dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to abide by the Court's orders. Id.
Plaintiff did not respond to the OSC in writing by March 30, 2018, and has not appeared in the action since it was removed. See Docket.
As not all parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned, the undersigned ORDERS the matter be reassigned to a District Judge, with the RECOMMENDATION that the action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute, failure to comply with Court orders, and failure to respond to the OSC. The Clerk of Court shall serve this Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, any party may serve and file objections to this report and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 2, 2018
/s/_________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge