Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05858/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05858-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HELEN AND MARTIN YACK,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 07-5858 PJH

v. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WASHINGTON MUTUAL INC, et al.,

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

The complaint 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 pro se plaintiff appeared at the case

management conference nor did either file a case management statement as ordered. No

defendant appeared as no defendant had been served.

An order to show cause (“OSC”) why the case should not be dismissed for failure to

prosecute and for failure to serve was issued on February 29,2008, scheduling a hearing

on the OSC for April 3, 2008. Plaintiffs were informed in the OSC, that the deadline for

service of the summons and complaint was March 19, 2008. Plaintiffs were additionally

advised that if they failed to appear at the hearing on the OSC, their case would be

dismissed. No one appeared for plaintiffs and no defendant appeared, as no defendant

has yet been served.

On March 6, 2008, an amended complaint bearing the name of two lawyers was

filed. Yet no substitution of counsel has been filed and no attorney has contacted the court

Case 4:07-cv-05858-PJH Document 8 Filed 04/04/08 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

or attempted to meet the deadlines imposed by the court’s orders.

Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to

serve any defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-05858-PJH Document 8 Filed 04/04/08 Page 2 of 2