Farris v. 3M Company
This text of Farris v. 3M Company (Farris v. 3M Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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.”). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: November 13, 2020 .
71 JON S. TIGAR 22 nited States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Farris v. 3M Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farris-v-3m-company-cand-2020.