Farris v. 3M Company

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 GARY FARRIS, et al., Case No. 18-cv-04186-JST 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 9 Vv. PREJUDICE 10 3M COMPANY, et al., ll Defendants. 12

13 No pretrial statement having been filed by November 6, 2020 as ordered, ECF No. 267, 14 and no party having appeared at today’s pretrial conference as ordered, the Court concludes that 3 15 || Plaintiffs are no longer prosecuting this case. The case is therefore dismissed with prejudice. Fed. a 16 || R. Civ. P. 41(b); Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp., 529 F.2d 943, 947 (9th Cir. 1976) (‘There is no 3 17 || question that a District Court has the power to dismiss a claim of a plaintiff with prejudice for 18 failure to comply with an order of the court.”). 20 Dated: November 13, 2020 .

71 JON S. TIGAR 22 nited States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28