Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03118/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03118-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELIAS STAVRINIDES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

COMPANY,

Defendant. /

No. C 15-03118 WHA

ORDER RE RECENTLY

RECEIVED LETTER

The Court is in receipt of a letter from plaintiff requesting to reopen his case. After

several warnings, an October 29 order dismissed plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute (Dkt.

No. 27). Defendant PG&E had filed a motion to dismiss on September 4, to which plaintiff

failed to respond. Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore, who then presided over the case, issued

an order for plaintiff to show cause, by October 15, as to why he did not timely respond to

defendant’s motion (Dkt. No. 18). Plaintiff did not respond to that order. The case was then

reassigned to the undersigned judge. A second order to show cause requested that plaintiff

show cause, in writing, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute by noon

on October 27. The order warned that failure to respond, or to show sufficient cause as to why

plaintiff has not responded to previous orders, would result in dismissal of the case for failure to

prosecute (Dkt. No. 26). Plaintiff again failed to file any response. 

Case 3:15-cv-03118-WHA Document 30 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff’s recent letter simply states that he did not know he needed to respond to

defendant’s motion to dismiss and says that he changed residences on October 10 (two weeks

after Judge Westmore issued the first OSC). Moreover, plaintiff’s letter still does contain any

opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss, which both OSCs requested. Despite multiple

warnings that the case would be dismissed, plaintiff has taken no steps to prosecute this case

since he filed it in July. Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-03118-WHA Document 30 Filed 11/17/15 Page 2 of 2