Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05873/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05873-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elza Hinostroza
Defendant
Scott Johnson
Plaintiff
Arlene H. Rosenfeld
Defendant
James I. Rosenfeld
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JAMES I. ROSENFELD, in his individual and

representative capacity as trustee of the James

I. and Arlene Helen Rosenfeld Trust; ARLENE

H. ROSENFELD, in her individual and

representative capacity as trustee of the James

I. and Arlene Helen Rosenfeld Trust; ELZA

HINOSTROZA; and DOES 1–10,

Defendants. /

No. C 18-05873 WHA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The parties originally had a January 8 deadline to hold a joint inspection of the premises

pursuant to General Order 56. An order extended this deadline to January 29 based on the

parties’ representation that scheduling conflicts prevented them from conducting the joint site

inspection on January 8 that they had “set the joint site inspection on January 29.” Now, nearly

six weeks after the extended deadline, the parties seek yet another extension, purportedly due to

scheduling conflicts (Dkt. Nos. 27–28, 30). By MARCH 15 AT NOON, plaintiff’s counsel shall

SHOW CAUSE, via declarations under oath, explaining why counsel did not timely seek relief

from the January 29 deadline and why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-05873-WHA Document 31 Filed 03/11/19 Page 1 of 1