Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01974/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01974-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JACOB WINDING, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LANDSAFE DEFAULT, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-01974 KJM AC 

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Presently, the 

undersigned’s findings and recommendations that this action be dismissed are pending. 

On November 24, 2015, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why this action should 

not be dismissed for failure to prosecute because plaintiff had failed to oppose defendants’ 

motions to dismiss. ECF No. 52. On January 4, 2016, having received no response from 

plaintiff, the court issued findings recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

ECF No. 53. Then, on January 19, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for a ninety day extension of 

time in order to find counsel.1

 ECF No. 54. That motion was improperly noticed in front of the 

presiding district judge, who on January 20, 2016 issued a minute order instructing plaintiff to renotice the motion before the undersigned. ECF No. 55. Plaintiff has yet to re-notice his motion. 

 

1

 It is unclear, based on plaintiff’s motion, what deadline he is seeking an extension of exactly. 

Case 2:15-cv-01974-KJM-AC Document 56 Filed 02/24/16 Page 1 of 2
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

In light of plaintiff’s filing of a motion for extension of time, the court will vacate its 

previous findings recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

Nevertheless, plaintiff failed to re-notice his motion before the undersigned as instructed by the 

presiding district judge. Accordingly, the court will issue a second order to show cause for failure 

to prosecute under Federal Rule 41(b), this time due to plaintiff’s failure to re-notice his motion in 

accordance with the court’s order. 

In accordance with the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The court’s January 4, 2016, findings and recommendations, ECF No. 53, are 

VACATED; and 

2. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order 

why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(b) for failure to prosecute. 

DATED: February 23, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01974-KJM-AC Document 56 Filed 02/24/16 Page 2 of 2