Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04055/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04055-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

NO. C 09-04055 RS

 ORDER

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 05/03/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

RAY HRDLICKA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

AIG, a Delaware Corporation; and 

GRANITE STATE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, a Pennsylvania Corporation, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-04055 RS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

This case is before the Court on a motion to dismiss filed by defendants AIG and Granite 

State Insurance Company. The hearing on defendants’ motion is currently set for May 6, 2010. 

Plaintiff Ray Hrdlicka has not opposed the motion. 

This failure suggests a lack of interest in prosecuting this case. Under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b), the court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute. In determining whether a 

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the case, the court must weigh the following 

factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 

Case 3:09-cv-04055-RS Document 23 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 2
2 

NO. C 09-04055 RS

 ORDER

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. 

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Generally speaking, however, the district court must first warn the plaintiff that the case is in 

danger of being dismissed for failure to prosecute and give the plaintiff an opportunity to respond. 

See, e.g., Palma v. Dent, No. C 06-6151 PJH, 2007 WL 2023517 at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2007). 

Accordingly, Hrdlicka is hereby ordered to show cause in writing why this case should not be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). His show cause response should be filed in this 

Court no later than June 10, 2010. Should defendants wish to file a response, they should do so no 

later than June 24, 2010. The parties are directed to appear for a show cause hearing on July 9, 

2010, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate 

Avenue, San Francisco, California. 

The motion hearing set for May 6, 2010, is hereby vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 05/03/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 3:09-cv-04055-RS Document 23 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 2