Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00117/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00117-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM J. WHITSITT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HEDY HOLMES STAFFING SERVICES, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-00117-MCE-AC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint (“FAC”), filed on March 10, 2015, includes claims against defendants for 

violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), California’s Fair 

Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), “the common law right to contract,” retaliation, and 

intentional infliction of emotional distress. ECF No. 42. 

On March 27, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s FAC, with a hearing 

scheduled for May 20, 2015. ECF No. 43. On May 14, 2015, the court continued the hearing via 

minute order to June 10, 2015, because plaintiff had failed to file a timely opposition or notice of 

non-opposition in violation of Local Rule 230(c). ECF No. 45. The court also warned plaintiff 

that a second failure to comply with Local Rule 230(c) would result in the issuance of an order to 

show cause for failure to prosecute. Id. The court continued its hearing again to June 17, 2015, 

Case 2:13-cv-00117-MCE-AC Document 48 Filed 06/11/15 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

four days later. ECF No. 46. Plaintiff has yet to file an opposition to defendants’ motion to 

dismiss. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order 

why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) 

for failure to prosecute; and

2. The court’s June 17, 2015, hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss is VACATED.

DATED: June 10, 2015 

Case 2:13-cv-00117-MCE-AC Document 48 Filed 06/11/15 Page 2 of 2