Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00865/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00865-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRISTI VERMA, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

EFRAT OKEV, et al.

Defendants.

No. 13-cv-00865-MCE-DB

ORDER

On September 26, 2016, the Court, in review of the case docket, ordered Plaintiff 

Zentek Corporation to obtain counsel and to file a status report regarding the status of its 

current representation no later than October 11, 2016. ECF No. 87. On September 30, 

2016, Defendants Efrat Okev, Lloyd Burton, and Augzenta, Inc. filed a Motion to 

(1) Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint For Failure to Comply With Court Orders or (2) to 

Preclude Plaintiffs From Offering Evidence. ECF No. 88. Plaintiff Zentek Corporation

has failed to respond to the Court’s September 26 Order, and all Plaintiffs have failed to 

file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, as 

required under Eastern District of California Local Rule 230(c). The Court on

October 13, 2016 thus issued an order that all Plaintiffs show cause in writing by October 

24, 2016 as to why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice, to which Plaintiffs 

have failed to respond. ECF No. 89.

Case 2:13-cv-00865-MCE-DB Document 90 Filed 11/23/16 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

The Court thus Orders that Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint be DISMISSED 

with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2016

Case 2:13-cv-00865-MCE-DB Document 90 Filed 11/23/16 Page 2 of 2