alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/ Lisa K. Vansickle                               |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   Lisa K. Vansickle                                 |   |
|   |   |   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   |   |   (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)      |   |

----
Robert Glen JONES, Jr., petitioner, v. Charles L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections.

No. 12-9753.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Ronald Dean KEATS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-1192.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
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

Case No. 17-cv-0703 NC

ORDER OF CONDITIONAL 

DISMISSAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

FLAMENGO & TENG ASSOCIATES No.2, 

L.P,, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00703 NC

ORDER OF CONDITIONAL 

DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. 25

The Court having been notified of the settlement of this action, and it appearing that

no issue remains for the Court’s determination,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this action and all claims asserted herein are

DISMISSED with prejudice. In the event that the settlement is not reached, any party may

move to reopen the case, provided that such motion is filed within 30 days. All scheduled 

dates are VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 13, 2017, _________________________ Nathanael M. Cousins

United States Magistrate Judge
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22306-22307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11068]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 675

[Docket No. 950206040-5040-01; I.D. 050195B]


Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Greenland 
Turbot/Arrowtooth Flounder/Sablefish

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS is closing the directed fishery for species in the 
Greenland turbot/arrowtooth flounder/sablefish fishery category by 
vessels using trawl gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding 
the 1995 Pacific halibut bycatch mortality allowance apportioned to the 
trawl Greenland turbot/arrowtooth flounder/sablefish fishery category 
in the BSAI.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), May 3, 1995, until 
12 midnight, A.l.t., December 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew N. Smoker, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive 
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management 
Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 
under authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed by regulations implementing 
the FMP at 50 CFR parts 620 and 675.
    The 1995 Pacific halibut bycatch mortality allowance apportioned to 
the trawl Greenland turbot/arrowtooth flounder/sablefish fishery 
category, which is defined at Sec. 675.21(b)(1)(iii)(C), was 
established as 120 metric tons by the 1995 final specifications (60 FR 
8479, February 14, 1995).
    The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined, in accordance 
with [[Page 22307]] Sec. 675.21(c)(1)(iii), that the 1995 bycatch 
mortality allowance of Pacific halibut apportioned to the trawl 
Greenland turbot/arrowtooth flounder/sablefish fishery category in the 
BSAI has been caught. Therefore, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing 
for aggregate species in the Greenland turbot/arrowtooth flounder/
sablefish fishery category by vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI.
    Directed fishing standards for applicable gear types may be found 
in the regulations at Sec. 675.20(h).

Classification

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 675.20 and is exempt from review 
under E.O. 12866.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 1, 1995.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-11068 Filed 5-1-95; 4:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30234 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus WESLEY LANDRY, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CR-97-L

- - - - - - - - - - April 08, 1998 Before DUHE’, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Wesley Landry has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the brief, Landry’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TETYANA DORSANEO,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD MATTHEW DORSANEO,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00765-VC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 96, 98

The defendant, Edward Dorsaneo, and his counsel, Jeffrey Neustadt, are ordered to show 

cause why they should not be sanctioned for threatening criminal prosecution in the course of 

civil proceedings. California Rule of Professional Conduct 5-100 prohibits members of the 

California bar from threatening to present criminal charges to obtain an advantage in a civil 

dispute. In apparent violation of this rule, Edward's opposition to Tetyana's motion for summary 

judgment claims that Tetyana violated federal immigration and criminal law and argues that she 

"should be referred by the Court to law enforcement for investigation." Opp. (Dkt. No. 96) at 24. 

In addition, Edward submitted a declaration through his counsel in which he alleges that Tetyana 

engaged in criminal conduct and states that he will provide the results of his private investigation 

to law enforcement. Edward Dorsaneo Decl. (Dkt. No. 98) ¶ 15. Both the lawyer's argument in 

the brief and Edward's statements in his declaration appear to be threats to refer Tetyana to law 

enforcement. This conduct may also have constituted criminal extortion under California Penal 

Code sections 518, 519, and 523. See Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal. 4th 299, 329-33 (2006); 

Mendoza v. Hamzeh, 155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 832, 835-37 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).

Therefore, Edward Dorsaneo and Neustadt are ordered to show cause why they should 
2

not be sanctioned pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and/or the 

Court's inherent authority. In addition, Neustadt is ordered to show cause why he should not be:

(i) referred to the Court's Standing Committee on Professional Conduct under Civil Local Rule 

11-6; and/or (ii) referred to the State Bar of California for this behavior.

Edward Dorsaneo and Neustadt are ordered to file written responses to this order by 

March 1, 2018. If the plaintiff wishes to file a response, she may do so by March 8, 2018. Any 

reply must be filed by March 15, 2018. A hearing on the order to show cause will take place on 

March 22, 2018 at 10:00 am. Both Edward Dorsaneo and Neustadt must appear in person.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2018

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 28, 2013

h1021 

# Order

Clerk October 28, 2013

147360

GAIL SILVERNAIL,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 147360

COA: 308762

St. Clair CC: 10

- 001090

- NF

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellee.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 23, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF LODGMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS LOG

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

sf-3820467 

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 

MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)

MJacobs@mofo.com 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490) 

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

ERIC A. TATE (CA SBN 178719) 

ETate@mofo.com 

RUDY Y. KIM (CA SBN 199426) 

RKim@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

KAREN L. DUNN (Pro Hac Vice) 

kdunn@bsfllp.com 

HAMISH P.M. HUME (Pro Hac Vice) 

hhume@bsfllp.com 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington DC 20005 

Telephone: 202.237.2727 

Facsimile: 202.237.6131 

WILLIAM CARMODY (Pro Hac Vice) 

bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com 

SHAWN RABIN (Pro Hac Vice) 

srabin@SusmanGodfrey.com 

SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 

1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor 

New York, NY 10019-6023 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and OTTOMOTTO LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

NOTICE OF LODGMENT OF 

SUPPLEMENTAL 

CHRONOLOGICAL 

COMMUNICATIONS LOG 

PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 5 OF 

THIS COURT’S ORDER GRANTING 

IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

PROVISIONAL RELIEF 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1469 Filed 09/05/17 Page 1 of 2
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF LODGMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS LOG

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

sf-3820467 

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 

TO: ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Ottomotto LLC 

(“Defendants”) hereby lodge a true and correct copy of the following document with the Court 

pursuant to paragraph five of this Court’s May 11, 2017 Order Granting in Part and Denying in 

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief (ECF No. 426) and the logs lodged on June 23, 

2017, July 3, 2017, and July 19, 2017 (see ECF No. 712 Ex. 1; ECF No. 792 Ex. 1, ECF No. 956 

Ex. 1): 

Ex. Description 

1 Supplemental chronological log of non-privileged oral and written communications as 

required under paragraph 5 of this Court’s May 11, 2017 Order Granting in Part and 

Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief 

Dated: September 5, 2017 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Arturo J. González 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and 

OTTOMOTTO LLC 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1469 Filed 09/05/17 Page 2 of 2
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 12, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 12, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16D0426. CHARLES E. KENDRICK v. SRA TRACK INC et al. .
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 16V308
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael E. Lehman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Sun Microsystems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for
the period ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Sun Microsystems, Inc.



|                       |  |     |  |                                 
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------
|Date: February 9, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/  MICHAEL E. LEHMAN          
|                       |  |     |  | Name: Michael E. Lehman         
|                       |  |     |  | Title:   Chief Financial Officer
**
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT**

**TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sabine Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individualcapacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Trust. 

 

SIMMONS BANK, TRUSTEE FOR

SABINE ROYALTYTRUST
By: /s/ Ron E. Hooper
Ron E. Hooper

SVP, Royalty Trust Management

Date: May 3, 2019 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sabine Royalty Trust and will be retained by Sabine Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 
**
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6931

MARC S. CASON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. M.D.P.S.C.S.; CMS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01024-CCB) Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 22, 2008 Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marc S. Cason, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* Although the district court’s order indicates that its dismissal constituted Cason’s third PLRA strike, a review of Cason’s numerous lawsuits reveals that Cason was previously issued three strikes. See Cason v. Weeks , No. 08-cv-00946-CCB (D. Md. May 7, 2008), aff’d , No. 08-6839 (4th Cir. July 28, 2008) (third strike); Cason v. Maryland Div. of Corr. , No. 06-cv-2032 (D. Md. filed Aug. 21, 2006; entered Aug. 22, 2006) (second strike); Cason v. Maryland Div. of Parole and Probation , No. 06-cv-1186 (D. Md. May 17, 2006) (first strike). 2 PER CURIAM: Marc S. Cason appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Cason v. M.D.P.S.C.S. , No. 1:08-cv-01024- CCB (D. Md. May 9, 2008). Because the district court’s dismissal was Cason’s fourth strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2000) (“PLRA”), 1Cason may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 8

   

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 186-8 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 2
March 15, 2017

Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles

Director’s Office

555 Wright Way

Carson City, Nevada 89711

RE: Clarification to Autonomous Technology Certification Submission

To the State of Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles:

Nevada ATCF LLC would like to clarify the following statements made in the attached 1

document (entitled “Autonomous Technology Knowledge and Expertise – Certification of

Autonomous Vehicles”), which was submitted on September 19, 2016, in support of Otto’s

application for an Autonomous Technology Certification Facility (“ATCF”) license:

● On page 3: “Otto’s product is a suite of technology hardware and software, including

cameras, radar, LiDAR, and automated steering and braking, that can be installed on

today’s fleet of commercial trucks to retrofit regular tractors and turn them into

advanced, safe, AVs.”

● On pages 9-10: “Selected advanced self-driving technologies developed in-house

and/or currently deployed in Otto’s autonomous vehicles include: . . . LiDAR –

In-house custom built 64-laser (Class 1) emitting 6.4 million beams a second at

10Hz.”

Nevada ATCF LLC respectfully submits the following clarifications:

● Otto has been developing its own LiDAR systems, but has not yet deployed an

“[i]n-house custom built 64-laser” in its autonomous vehicles, and

● To the extent any vehicles tested and certified by Nevada ATCF LLC to date included

a LiDAR sensor, such LiDAR sensor was commercially available.

Sincerely,

Nevada ATCF LLC

1

 Nevada ATCF LLC is located on 7900 West Sunset Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89113. Nevada ATCF LLC is 100%

owned by Ottomotto LLC (“Otto”).

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 186-8 Filed 04/07/17 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Xinyinhai Technology, Ltd. (the Company) certify that: 1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  May 14, 2009 /s/ Tian Ling Tian Ling (Chief Executive Officer)    /s/ Du Song Du Song (Chief Financial Officer)
In re Mack S. McCLOUD, petitioner.

No. 12-9927.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

MICHAEL SIMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 3:13 CV 57

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Michael Sims, a pro se prisoner, filed this habeas corpus petition attempting to

challenge his 1989 convictions and 120 year sentence by the Elkhart Superior Court

under cause number 20D02-9801-CF-1. This is not the first time that Sims has brought a

habeas corpus petition challenging that conviction. In Sims v. Superintendent, 3:11-CV297 (N.D.Ind. filed July 27, 2011), Sims sought to challenge the same conviction he is

challenging here. The court found that the petition was untimely and final judgment

was entered August 8, 2011. A “prior untimely petition . . . is not a curable technical or

procedural deficiency but rather operates as an irremediable defect barring

consideration of the petitioner’s substantive claims.” Altman v. Benik, 337 F. 764, 766 (7th

Cir. 2003). Therefore this case is a successive habeas corpus petition. 

This court lacks jurisdiction to hear an unauthorized second or successive habeas

petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). “A district court must dismiss a second or successive

petition, without awaiting any response from the government, unless the court of

appeals has given approval for its filing.” Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th
Cir. 1996) (emphasis in original). Because Sims has not obtained authorization from the

court of appeals to file a successive petition, this case is DISMISSED for want of

jurisdiction. 

SO ORDERED.

Date: February 7, 2013

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DHL EXPRESS (USA) INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:17-cv-00748-HRL 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 

SETTLEMENT

The court having been informed that this case has settled, all previously scheduled 

deadlines and appearances are vacated.

On or before November 24, 2017, the parties shall file a stipulated dismissal pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). If a dismissal is not filed by the specified date, then the parties shall appear 

in Courtroom 2, 5th Floor of the United States District Court, 280 South First Street, San Jose, 

California on December 5, 2017, 10:00 a.m. and show cause, if any, why the case should not be 

dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). Additionally, the parties shall file a statement in 

response to this Order to Show Cause no later than November 28, 2017 advising as to (1) the 

status of the activities of the parties in finalizing settlement; and (2) how much additional time, if 

any, is requested to finalize the settlement and file the dismissal. If a dismissal is filed as ordered, 

the Order to Show Cause hearing will be automatically vacated and the parties need not file a 
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

statement in response to this Order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2017

Howard R. Lloyd

United States Magistrate Judge