Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01728/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01728-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMIT MAHAJAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

SANGEETA KUMAR (aka SANGEETA )

KUMARI), RAJNESH KUMAR, VISMA )

KUMAR, and iFREEDOM DIRECT )

CORPORATION (formerly NEW )

FREEDOM MORTGAGE COMPANY, )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:06-cv-01728-AWI-SMS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF

PROSECUTION

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

SPECIALLY SERVE PLAINTIFF

Date: 9/14/07

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Ctrm: 7 ~ 6 Floor th

This matter initially came on for a Mandatory Scheduling

Conference on January 23, 2007, pursuant to the court’s standard

Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference (Doc. 2-1). The

Scheduling Conference was continued to June 5, 2007 due to a

pending motion to dismiss before Judge Ishii (Doc. 9). The

Scheduling Conference was again continued to August 7, 2007 for

Diane M. Acciavatti, Esq., counsel identified for plaintiff in New

Jersey, to either withdraw as attorney of record for plaintiff via

noticed motion unless plaintiff concurred; OR, if plaintiff did not

wish to pursue this action in California, file a dismissal with

Case 1:06-cv-01728-AWI-SMS Document 26 Filed 08/09/07 Page 1 of 3
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

prejudice by June 18, 2007 (Doc. 19). On June 19, 2007, Diane M.

Acciavatti, Esq., filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for

plaintiff (Doc. 20). On June 21, 2007, Judge Ishii granted the

motion to withdraw. Therefore, the Scheduling Conference came on

regularly on August 7, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. before Judge Snyder. Pro

Se Plaintiff Amit Mahajan did not appear or otherwise contact the

court. Elizabeth A. Vogel, Esq., of the Law Offices of Herman

Franck, appeared telephonically on behalf of defendants.

A review of the instant action shows that plaintiff has not

diligently prosecuted this case. The court possesses the

discretionary authority to dismiss an action based on plaintiff’s

failure to prosecute diligently. Fed. R. Civ. 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 that:

1. This matter be set for hearing on September 14, 2007 at

9:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 7 on the Sixth Floor before the

Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge, for

consideration of dismissal for lack of prosecution.

Case 1:06-cv-01728-AWI-SMS Document 26 Filed 08/09/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

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

be dismissed, he shall submit them by sworn declaration of facts on

or before August 31, 2007, to which he may append a supporting

memorandum of law, including (A) an explanation of the lack of

activity in this case, and (B) shall list each specific step he

plans to take to prepare this case for trial.

3. Defendants may file a declaration or memorandum stating

their position, but are not required to do so, on or before

September 7, 2007.

4. The Clerk’s Office specially serve plaintiff as follows:

Amit Mahajan

c/o Michael P. Kushner, Esq.

350 Fifth Avenue, 68 Floor, Suite 6110 th

New York, NY 10118

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01728-AWI-SMS Document 26 Filed 08/09/07 Page 3 of 3