Luo v. City of Pleasant Hill

N.D. California

Luo v. City of Pleasant Hill

DecidedJanuary 30, 2025

Docket3:22-cv-02981

StatusUnknown

This text of Luo v. City of Pleasant Hill (Luo v. City of Pleasant Hill) 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.

Bluebook

Luo v. City of Pleasant Hill, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 CUIHUA LUO, Case No. 22-cy-02981-TSH 7 Plaintiff, y. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 STEPHEN VUONG, 10 Defendant. 11 12 Pending before the Court is Defendant Stephen Vuong’s Motion for Judgment on the 5 13 || Pleadings. ECF No. 61. Plaintiff Cuihua Luo 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 ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be 5 || dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. Plaintiff shall file a 5 18 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

28 United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 CUIHUA LUO, Case No. 22-cy-02981-TSH 7 Plaintiff, y. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 STEPHEN VUONG, 10 Defendant. 11 12 Pending before the Court is Defendant Stephen Vuong’s Motion for Judgment on the 5 13 || Pleadings. ECF No. 61. Plaintiff Cuihua Luo 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 ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be 5 || dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. Plaintiff shall file a 5 18 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

28 United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Luo v. City of Pleasant Hill, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luo-v-city-of-pleasant-hill-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack