Opinion
21-cv-04543-SK
04-19-2022
ORLANDO GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL JOHN WRIGHT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
SALLIE KIM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff filed this action on June 14, 2021, against three defendants - Michael John Wright, Linda Ann Wright, and Sushi Valley, LLC. (Dkt. No. 1.)
Upon Plaintiff's motion, the Court extended the time for service for the two individual Defendants (Michael John Wright and Linda Ann Wright) and time to conduct a joint site inspection by sixty days. (Dkt. No. 9.) Plaintiff represents that both Michael John Wright and Linda Ann Wright were served by December 17, 2021, over one month after the Court's extended deadline. Plaintiff did not seek leave of Court to further extend the service deadline for the individual Defendants.
Plaintiff did not move to extend the time to serve Sushi Valley, LLC. Therefore, the deadline to serve Sushi Valley pursuant to the Scheduling Order expired on August 13, 2021. (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service as to Sushi Valley. Thus, it is not clear whether Sushi Valley has been served.
Pursuant to the scheduling order entered on June 15, 2021, based on the service date of December 17, 2021, the last day for Plaintiff to file a Notice of Need for Mediation was March 29, 2022. (Dkt. No. 6.) To date, Plaintiff has not yet done so.
Moreover, no Defendant has appeared yet. Plaintiff has not moved to enter default against any of Defendant despite the fact that service on at least two of the Defendants was completed by December 17, 2021, over four months ago.
The Court notes that it has repeatedly issued Orders to Show Cause (“OSC”) to Plaintiff's Counsel's law firm based on Plaintiff's Counsel's failure to diligently prosecute, repeatedly sanctioned attorneys at the Plaintiff's Counsel's law firm, and referred two individual attorneys with Plaintiff's Counsel's law firm to the Northern District of California's Standing Committee on Professional Conduct. Despite repeated apologies and promises to calendar deadlines, the Court notes that attorneys with the Plaintiff's Counsel's law firm continue to fail to diligently prosecute their cases. Plaintiff's Counsel's is responsible for prosecution of this case in a diligent manner.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to Show Cause in writing by no later than April 29, 2022, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and why Counsel should not be personally sanctioned in the amount of $1,000. Additionally, Plaintiff is admonished that, if he fails to file a response to this OSC by April 29, 2022, the Court will reassign this matter and issue a report and recommendation that this matter be dismissed for failure to prosecute and will sanction Plaintiff's Counsel without any further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.