LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 CONDALISA LEGRAND, Case No. 22-cv-05815-TSH 7 Plaintiff, y. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 ABBOTT LABORATORIES, 10 Defendant. 11 12 Pending before the Court is Defendant Abbott Laboratories’ Motion for Partial Dismissal. 5 13 || ECF No. 131. Plaintiff Condalisa LeGrand failed to file an opposition in compliance with Civil S 14 || Local Rule 7. The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve 3 15 || the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 16 || (1962). Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not 5 || be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. Plaintiff shall file 5 ig || 2 declaration by February 6, 2025 and simultaneously file either an opposition in compliance with 19 Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or a statement of nonopposition in compliance with Local Rule 7-3(b). If 0 Plaintiff file an opposition, Defendant may file any reply by February 13, 2025. Notice is hereby provided that failure to file a written response will be deemed an 9 admission that you do not intend to prosecute, and this case will likely be dismissed. Thus, it is 3 imperative the Court receive a written response by the deadline above. IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 6 Dated: January 30, 2025 a THOMAS S. HIXSON 28 United States Magistrate Judge