Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02572/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02572-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

JOANNE CONWRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C09-2572 TEH

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS

TO WHY CASE SHOULD NOT

BE DISMISSED AND

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE

IMPOSED

Plaintiff has now twice failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to

Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. First, Plaintiff missed the original June 28, 2010

opposition filing deadline. Second, after this Court granted the parties’ stipulation to

continue the briefing and hearing schedule, Plaintiff missed the revised July 26, 2010

opposition filing deadline. In addition, Plaintiff has not filed any written response to the

Court’s June 30, 2010 order to show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed for

missing the June 28, 2010 deadline. Nor has the Court received any requests for further

extensions of time.

Accordingly, with good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to

prosecute. A written response to this order to show cause shall be filed on or before

August 6, 2010. Failure to file a timely response shall result in dismissal of this case for

failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

2. Plaintiff’s counsel shall show cause as to why she should not be sanctioned for her

repeated failure to comply with the orders and local rules of this Court. On or before

August 6, 2010, Plaintiff’s counsel shall file a written response to this second order to show

cause. This order to show cause shall remain pending, and Plaintiff’s counsel shall file a

written response, even if this case is dismissed. If the Court finds sanctions to be warranted

Case 3:09-cv-02572-TEH Document 25 Filed 07/27/10 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

following review of Plaintiff’s counsel’s response, it will issue an order setting a show cause

hearing date.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the August 16, 2010 hearing on Defendants’ motion

to dismiss is VACATED. The Court will set a revised briefing and hearing schedule, if

necessary, after resolving whether this case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 07/27/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:09-cv-02572-TEH Document 25 Filed 07/27/10 Page 2 of 2