Luo v. City of Pleasant Hill

District Court, N.D. California·Decided January 30, 2025·No. 3:22-cv-02981·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 5 6 CUIHUA LUO, Case No. 22-cy-02981-TSH 7 Plaintiff, y. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 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

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

Luo v. City of Pleasant Hill (Luo v. City of Pleasant Hill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Link v. Wabash Railroad
370 U.S. 626 (Supreme Court, 1962)