Fergus v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05993
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HEATHER FERGUS, Case No. 25-cv-05993-TLT

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 9 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 10 TRUSTEES OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, 11 Defendant. 12

13 Plaintiff Heather Fergus (“Plaintiff”) has missed two Court deadlines and failed to respond 14 to Defendant San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (sued as “Trustees of San Francisco Bay Area 15 Rapid Transit”) (“Defendant”)’s motion to dismiss her claims. For the reasons discussed below, 16 Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 On May 13, 2025, Plaintiff sued Defendant in state court, bringing four claims: (1) 19 religious discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) 20 failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to accommodate 21 religious beliefs in violation of FEHA; and (4) retaliation in violation of FEHA. ECF 1-1. On 22 July 16, 2025, Defendant removed this action to federal court. ECF 1. 23 On July 22, 2025, Defendant moved to extend the responsive pleading deadline. ECF 7. 24 On July 30, 2025, the Court granted the extension and ordered Defendant to respond to the 25 Complaint no later than August 25, 2025. ECF 9. 26 On August 25, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. ECF 12. 27 Plaintiff’s opposition was due by September 8, 2025. See id. On September 4, 2025, Defendant 1 filed another motion to dismiss containing the same arguments. ECF 17. Plaintiff’s opposition 2 was due by September 18, 2025. 3 In Defendant’s motions to dismiss, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to properly name 4 and serve the correct entity, rendering the Summons defective under Federal Rule of Civil 5 Procedure 12(b)(4)–(5). ECF 17 at 5. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff attempted service on 6 “Trustees of San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District,” an entity that does not exist, which 7 renders Plaintiff’s service improper. Id. Accordingly, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to 8 assert the Court’s personal jurisdiction over any defendant and the action must be dismissed. Id. 9 Plaintiff did not file a response to either of Defendant’s motions to dismiss. 10 On September 25, 2025, after the opposition deadlines passed, Defendant filed a notice of 11 Plaintiff’s non-opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. ECF 18. Defendant requested that 12 the Court grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF 17, in its entirety. Id. at 2. 13 II. LEGAL STANDARD 14 “Any opposition to a motion . . . must be filed and served not more than 14 days after the 15 motion was filed.” Civ. L.R. 7-3(a). 16 “If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant 17 may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states 18 otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) . . . operates as an adjudication on the merits.” 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “[B]efore dismissing a case for failure to prosecute, the court must weigh 20 the following factors: (1) ‘the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation’; (2) “the 21 court's need to manage its docket’; (3) ‘the risk of prejudice to the defendant[ ]’; (4) ‘the 22 availability of less drastic sanctions’; and (5) ‘the public policy favoring disposition of cases [on] 23 their merits.’” NFlash, Inc. v. ComNet Tech. Grp., No. 24-cv-03634, 2025 WL 964686, at *1 24 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2025) (citing Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010)). 25 III. DISCUSSION 26 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to file a response to Defendant’s motions to dismiss 27 violates Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) and the Court’s deadlines. Defendant first filed a motion to 1 Plaintiff did not oppose Defendant’s motion. Defendant’s second motion to dismiss was filed on 2 || September 4, 2025. ECF 17. Plaintiff's opposition was due by September 18, 2025. Id. Plaintiff 3 did not oppose Defendant’s motion. Thus, Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s deadlines. 4 See Civ. L.R. 7-3(a); Berkeley Homeless Union v. City of Berkeley, No. 25-cv-04449, 2025 WL 5 2644753, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2025) (dismissing action for failure to prosecute where 6 || plaintiff failed to respond to motion to dismiss). Accordingly, Plaintiff is in violation of the 7 Court’s rules and Plaintiff must show cause, considering the relevant factors, this action should 8 not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 9 IV. CONCLUSION 10 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action 11 should not be dismissed. Plaintiff shall file a response no later than October 9, 2025. Absent a 12 response, the Court will dismiss this matter on October 17, 2025 for failure to prosecute. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: September 29, 2025

A 16 United States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28