Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01106/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01106-1/pdf.json

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELISSA BARRY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

WORLDWIDE DEBT MANAGEMENT, )

)

Defendant. )

)

1:09-cv-01106-SMS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A

COURT ORDER (Doc. 14)

Date: 1/29/10

Time: 9:30am

Ctrm: 7

On December 15, 2009, this Court “ORDERED” plaintiff to

supplement the application and motion for default judgment (Doc. 10)

with a memorandum of points and authorities in conformance

therewith by December 29, 2009 (Doc. 14).

To date, and despite the holidays, plaintiff has failed to

comply with an order of the court , has not otherwise contacted the 1

court, and is therefore not diligently prosecuting this case. The

court possesses the discretionary authority to dismiss an action

based on plaintiff’s failure to prosecute diligently. Fed. R. Civ.

The law firm of Krohn & Moss, LTD, is also upside down, if you will, with the court in at least two 1

other cases, namely, McKay v. Data-Central, 1:09-cv-00280-AWI-SMS, and Laurie v.AssetAcceptance, 1:09-cv01719-LJO-SMS, wherein Judge O’Neill specifically “...ADMONISHES counsel that they are expected to

observe and comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules.”

1

Case 1:09-cv-01106-SMS Document 15 Filed 01/05/10 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

P. 41(b); Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, Fed. Civ. Proc. Before

Trial ¶ 16:431 (1997). Unreasonable delay by plaintiff is

sufficient to justify dismissal, even in the absence of actual

prejudice to the defendant (Moore v. Telfon Communications Corp.,

589 F.2d 959, 967-68 (9th Cir. 1978)) since a presumption of injury

arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay. Fidelity

Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27,

29 (9th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff then has the burden of showing

justification for the delay and, in the absence of such showing,

the case is properly dismissed for failure to prosecute. Nealey v.

Transportation Maritima Mexicana, S.A., 662 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir. 1980).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. That this matter be set for hearing on January 29, 2010,

at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 7 before the Honorable Sandra M.

Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration of

dismissal for plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order.

2. If plaintiff has any reasons why this action should not

be dismissed, they shall be submitted by sworn declaration of facts

on or before January 20, 2010, to which a supporting memorandum of

law may be appended, to include an explanation for the failure to

comply with the Court’s order of December 15, 2009.

Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with and/or

respond to this order will result in outright dismissal of this

action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01106-SMS Document 15 Filed 01/05/10 Page 2 of 2