Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05158/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05158-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights 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

SHELLY LAL,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-5158 PJH

v. ORDER DISMISSING

CASE FOR FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Although plaintiff’s counsel appeared at the initial case management conference on

November 30, 2006, it did not go forward due to counsel’s failure to meet and confer and to

participate in the preparation of the joint case management statement. The matter was

continued to January 18, 2007, to afford plaintiff the opportunity before that date to: 1)

meet and confer with defense counsel, 2) prepare a joint case management statement, 3)

comply with the initial disclosure requirements required by Fed. R. Civ P. 26, and 4) file the

papers necessary to attain guardian ad litem status. Neither plaintiff nor her counsel

appeared at the conference on January 18, 2007, nor did either comply with the other

orders of the court. That same date, the court issued an order to show cause why the case

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, with a hearing set for February 1, 2007. 

Neither plaintiff nor her counsel appeared at the hearing. Counsel for defendant advised

that he had had no contact with either since the last calling of the case. Nor had he

received the initial disclosures that had been ordered by the court to be produced within

two weeks from November 30, 2007. 

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

Case 4:06-cv-05158-PJH Document 24 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

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). Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the re-scheduled

case management conference, and the further failure to appear at the subsequent hearing

on the order to show cause, constitute circumstances warranting the court’s dismissal of

plaintiff’s 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-05158-PJH Document 24 Filed 02/02/07 Page 2 of 2