Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05858/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05858-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HELEN AND MARTIN YACK

Plaintiff,

 v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL INC, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-5858 PJH 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The complaint in this matter was filed on November 19, 2007, and an order setting the initial

case management conference and ADR deadlines was issued the same day, scheduling the

conference for February 28, 2008. Neither plaintiff appeared at the case management conference,

nor did either file a case management statement as ordered. No defendant appeared, as the docket

reflects that none of the four defendants has been served; though the court notes that the deadline for

service is March 19, 2008. 

THE COURT hereby issues an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why plaintiffs’ claims should

not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. The hearing on the ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE will be April 3, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. to

afford plaintiffs additional time within which to serve the defendants. Failure to serve is a separate

basis for dismissal of this action.

If plaintiffs fail to appear at the hearing on the ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, the case will be

dismissed. 

The court also notes that, pro se plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives able to fairly

represent and adequately protect the interests of the class. Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79

Case 4:07-cv-05858-PJH Document 4 Filed 02/29/08 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

(9th Cir. 1962) ("a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other

than himself"). Thus it is likely that class allegations will be stricken if plaintiffs proceed

unrepresented. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2008 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:07-cv-05858-PJH Document 4 Filed 02/29/08 Page 2 of 2