Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05776/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05776-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Earl Crowell
Plaintiff
U.S. Bankcorp, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL EARL CROWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. BANKCORP, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05776-WHO 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

On December 23, 2015, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Dkt. No. 

10. When plaintiff failed to file an opposition or other response to the motion, I issued an Order to 

Show Cause directing plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. Dkt. No. 12. Then, when it appeared that plaintiff may not have received notice of 

defendant’s motion to dismiss or of the Order to Show Cause, I dissolved the Order to Show 

Cause, directed that the relevant filings and orders from this case be served on plaintiff by 

standard U.S. Mail, and gave plaintiff until February 24, 2016 to respond to defendant’s motion to 

dismiss. Dkt. No. 13.

Plaintiff filed nothing in response. On March 1, 2016, I issued a Second Order to Show

Cause, this time giving plaintiff until March 9, 2016 to show cause why the case should not be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dkt. No. 15. As of today’s date, plaintiff has not responded to 

that Order.

In light of the above, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to 

prosecute. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing factors 

relevant to whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order); 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Although it is preferred, it is not 

required that the district court make explicit findings in order to show that it has considered these 

Case 3:15-cv-05776-WHO Document 21 Filed 03/21/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

factors.”). Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 10, is DENIED AS MOOT. The case 

management conference set for March 22, 2016 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2016

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05776-WHO Document 21 Filed 03/21/16 Page 2 of 2