Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01621/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01621-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAI VANG,

No. CIV S-09-1621 MCE DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v.

LUELLA HUDSON, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

This matter came before the court on June 4, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. for a Status

(Pretrial Scheduling) Conference. No appearance was made by plaintiff, who is proceeding pro

se in this action. R. Duane Skelton, Esq. appeared as counsel for defendant Luella Hudson.

On April 6, 2010, the court’s order setting the status conference was filed and

served by the court on each party who has appeared in this case and has not been dismissed. The

order provides that “[e]ach party shall appear at the Status Conference either by counsel or, if

proceeding in propria persona, on his or her own behalf.” Order Setting Status (Pretrial

Scheduling) Conference (Doc. No. 43) at 2. The order also provides that “[p]laintiff Vang shall

file and serve a status report on or before May 21, 2010.” Id. Plaintiff was advised that

the failure to file a timely status report or the failure to appear at

the status conference, either in person or telephonically, may result

in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for lack of

Case 2:09-cv-01621-MCE -DAD Document 50 Filed 06/08/10 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

2

prosecution and as a sanction for failure to comply with court

orders and applicable rules. See Local Rules 110 and 183.

Id. at 3. The court recently reminded plaintiff of her obligations to file a status report and appear

at the status conference on June 4, 2010. See Order filed May 18, 2010 (Doc. No. 48) at1-2 &

n.1. In direct violation of the court’s orders, plaintiff failed to fail a status report and failed to

appear at the status conference. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice for lack of prosecution and as a sanction for failure to comply with court orders

and applicable rules.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any

objections to these findings and recommendations must be in submitted in writing and must be

filed and served within fourteen (14) days after these findings and recommendations are filed. A

document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 7, 2010.

DAD:kw

DDad1\orders.prose\vang1621.oasc.f&r

Case 2:09-cv-01621-MCE -DAD Document 50 Filed 06/08/10 Page 2 of 2