Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05171/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05171-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

DAVID COLLINS, NICHOLAS SCHENCK,

JEREMY SCHENCK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UKIAH VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, 

et al., 

Defendant. /

No. C 06-5171 PJH 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

The initial case management conference was continued on November 22, 2006, at the

hearing on plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw, to January 18, 2007, at the request of Nicholas

Schenck so that he might attempt to locate substitute counsel. Neither of the other two plaintiffs

appeared and Nicholas Schenck was advised that he could not represent them. By order filed

November 28, 2006, all plaintiffs were advised of the date for the conference and ordered to appear

either through new counsel or in person if they remained unrepresented. They were further advised

that they must file a joint case management statement in advance of the conference. The court order

mailed to Jeremy Schenck was returned as undeliverable. The orders mailed to the other two

plaintiffs were not returned. No plaintiff appeared at the conference. Counsel for defendants advised

that their mail to one or more of the plaintiffs had also been returned as undeliverable. 

On the same date the court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be

dismissed for failure to prosecute. As plaintiffs are proceeding without counsel, copies of the order

were mailed to the addresses they had provided to the court. None of the notices were returned as

Case 4:06-cv-05171-PJH Document 36 Filed 02/02/07 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

undeliverable. However, none of the plaintiffs appeared at the hearing. 

When circumstances make such action appropriate, a district court may dismiss a complaint

for failure to prosecute, in order to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. See

Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-32 (1962); Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th

Cir. 1992). Two of the plaintiffs’ failure to appear at the hearing on counsel’s motion to withdraw,

although they were ordered to do so, all three plaintiffs’ failure to appear at the re-scheduled case

management conference, and their further failure to appear at the subsequent hearing on the order to

show cause, constitute circumstances warranting the court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint

pursuant to Rule 41(b).

Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-05171-PJH Document 36 Filed 02/02/07 Page 2 of 2