Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01495/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01495-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Empresario En Desarrollo, Corp.
Plaintiff
Juan Carlos Fuentes
Defendant
Deman Salomon Myvett
Defendant
Julio Pastrana
Defendant
Maria Pastrana
Defendant
Juana Polonski
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

EMPRESARIO EN DESARROLLO, 

CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIA PASTRANA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01495-HSG 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Empresario En Desarrollo, Corp., initially brought this case against its former 

independent contractors, Defendants Maria Pastrana, Julio Pastrana, Juana Polonski, Deman 

Salomon Myvett, and Juan Carlos Fuentes, in the Eastern District of New York. See Compl., Dkt. 

No. 1. The case was transferred to this Court in March because Defendants reside in California. 

See Dkt. Nos. 33, 34.

Counsel for Plaintiff moved to withdraw. See Dkt. No. 74.1 The Court set a hearing on the 

motions to withdraw and the initial case management conference for July 30. See Dkt. No. 125. 

The Court ordered counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants to appear at the hearing in person, id., and 

because Plaintiff is a corporation, ordered a representative for Plaintiff to appear in person, Dkt. 

No. 126.

Neither counsel for Plaintiff nor a representative for Plaintiff appeared at the July 30 

hearing. Nor did counsel for Defendants. Only Fuentes (by phone), Polonski (in person), and 

Myvett (in person) were present for the hearing.2 Given the non-participation of Plaintiff, the 

 

1

In addition, Defendants, using the ECF access granted to Fuentes, filed what they styled as 

motions to withdraw their counsel. See Dkt. Nos. 56, 90, 95, 101, 107.

2 Maria Pastrana and Julio Pastrana checked in to CourtCall but appear to have been disconnected 

before the hearing began.

Case 4:19-cv-01495-HSG Document 127 Filed 07/31/19 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

Court was unable to hold the initial case management conference or consider the pending motions 

to withdraw. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that where a “plaintiff fails to prosecute or 

to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any 

claim against it.” But a defendant need not file a motion in order for a district court to dismiss a 

case under Rule 41(b), given the Supreme Court’s statement that “[t]he authority of a court to 

dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’ 

governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own 

affairs[.]” See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute. Because Plaintiff counsel’s motion to withdraw was neither 

granted nor heard, counsel is DIRECTED to share this order with his client. Plaintiff, appearing 

through present counsel or newly retained counsel, shall file a statement of no more than two 

pages by August 6, 2019 explaining why the case should not be dismissed in light of the facts 

described above.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 7/631/

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

3 Plaintiff and its counsel are reminded that a “corporation, unincorporated association, partnership 

or other such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this Court” and may not 

proceed pro se. See Civil L.R. 3-9(b).

Case 4:19-cv-01495-HSG Document 127 Filed 07/31/19 Page 2 of 2