From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wescott v. Block

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Feb 8, 2023
22-cv-00543-EMC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2023)

Opinion

22-cv-00543-EMC

02-08-2023

CARL A. WESCOTT, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT J. BLOCK, et al., Defendants.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

EDWARD M. CHEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Carl A. Wescott is a pro se litigant. In an order filed on June 13, 2022, the Court dismissed the bulk of the claims asserted by Ms. Wescott. It allowed him to proceed with only: (1) a claim for intrusion upon seclusion, against Ms. Stephens and Mr. Block only, and (2) a claim for fraudulent concealment, against Mr. Block only. See Docket No. 13 (Order at 9); see also Docket No. 18 (order).

It appears that, thereafter, summons was executed on Mr. Block, but not on Ms. Stephens. See Docket Nos. 21-22. On November 29, 2022, the Court held an initial case management conference. Mr. Wescott made an appearance but Mr. Block and Ms. Stephens did not. The Court specifically noted that the summons had not been executed on Ms. Stephens. Mr. Wescott represented that he and Mr. Block had reached a settlement. See Docket No. 27 (minutes).

A status conference was thereafter held on January 18, 2023. No party, including Mr. Wescott, made an appearance. The Court noted that there appeared to be a settlement with Mr. Block but that Mr. Wescott's “intent as to [Ms.] Stephens remains unknown.” Docket No. 29 (minutes). The Court then stated that it would issue an order to show cause (“OSC”) as to why the case should not be dismissed based on Mr. Wescott's failure to appear. See Docket No. 29 (minutes).

Before an OSC could issue, Mr. Wescott filed a “Notice of Settlement” in which he reiterated that he had reached a settlement with Mr. Block. See Docket No. 30 (stating that “Plaintiff and Mr. Block agree that Mr. Block should be indemnified by Mr. Szucsko [his employer whom the Court previously dismissed],” that “Mr. Block has requested that Mr. Szucsko tender to his carrier for Mr. Block's defense and/or indemnification,” and that, “[w]hen Plaintiff receives payment for Mr. Block, he will dismiss Mr. Block with prejudice”). Mr. Wescott did not make any comment regarding his claim against Ms. Stephens.

Taking into account the above, the Court shall proceed as follows. The Court hereby issues an order to show cause.

• Mr. Wescott shall show cause as to why his claim against Ms. Stephens should not be dismissed without prejudice based on a failure to prosecute.
• In addition, Mr. Wescott shall show cause as to why his claims against Mr. Block should not be dismissed without prejudice in light of his settlement with Mr. Block. The Court understands that Mr. Wescott may not want to dismiss Mr. Block until he receives an actual payment from him (or an insurer). But the issue of enforcement of the settlement agreement is not a reason to keep this case open indefinitely. If Mr. Wescott has a settlement agreement with Mr. Block, and Mr. Block fails to comply with the settlement agreement, then Mr. Wescott may have a new claim against Mr. Block.

Mr. Wescott's response to this order to show cause shall be filed by February 22, 2023. If a response is not timely filed, then the Clerk of the Court shall automatically dismiss the remaining claims in their entirety and close the file in the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Wescott v. Block

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Feb 8, 2023
22-cv-00543-EMC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2023)
Case details for

Wescott v. Block

Case Details

Full title:CARL A. WESCOTT, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT J. BLOCK, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Feb 8, 2023

Citations

22-cv-00543-EMC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2023)