(PS) Hill v. U.S. Bancorp, No. 2:2015cv00540 - Document 41 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 03/03/16 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and for violation of the courts orders, and that the Clerk be directed to close this case; referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to these F&Rs due within 14 days. (Benson, A)

Download PDF

(PS) Hill v. U.S. Bancorp Doc. 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIFFANY HILL, 12 No. 2:15-cv-540-MCE-EFB PS Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 U.S. BANCORP, 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. 16 17 This matter was before the court on February 24, 2016, for hearing on defendant’s motion 18 to compel responses to discovery requests and to appear for her deposition. ECF No. 18. 19 Attorney Jennifer Zhao appeared on behalf of defendant. No appearance was made on behalf of 20 plaintiff. 21 The motion demonstrates that plaintiff failed to provide any responses to defendant’s 22 discovery requests and failed to appear for her noticed deposition, and accordingly Local Rule 23 251(e) applies. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(e) (providing that the requirement that the parties file a 24 Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement does not apply “when there has been a complete and 25 total failure to respond to a discovery request or order.”). Local Rule 251(e), required plaintiff to 26 file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion by no later than February 3, 2016. 27 In violation of that rule, plaintiff filed nothing. Accordingly, the hearing on the motion was 28 continued to February 24, 2016, and plaintiff was ordered to show cause, by no later than 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 February 17, 2016, why sanctions should not be imposed for her failure to timely file an 2 opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion. ECF No. 37. That order also directed 3 plaintiff to file either an opposition or statement of non-opposition by February 17, 2016. The 4 order also admonished plaintiff that her failure to do so may result in the granting of defendant’s 5 motion and/or a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.1 6 Plaintiff did not respond to court’s order to show cause. Nor did she comply with the 7 order that she file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion by 8 February 17, 2016. Furthermore, as noted, she failed to appear at the hearing on the motion.2 9 Plaintiff has failed to respond to duly propounded discovery. She has failed to appear for 10 her duly noticed deposition. She has failed to file any response to the motion to compel. She has 11 failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause and failed to comply with court orders and the 12 court’s local rules. The record demonstrates that plaintiff has apparently abandoned her case. 13 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution 14 and for violation of the courts orders, and that the Clerk be directed to close this case. See Fed. R. 15 Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 17 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 18 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 19 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 20 ///// 21 ///// 22 23 24 25 1 Although it appears that plaintiff’s copy of the order to show cause was returned as undeliverable, plaintiff was properly served at her last address of record. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address is fully effective and it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of her current address at all times. 2 26 27 28 At the hearing, defense counsel represented that in addition to serving plaintiff a copy of the motion at her last known address, counsel also emailed plaintiff a courtesy copy of the motion, but did not receive a response. Counsel indicated that the email address she used was provided by plaintiff’s former counsel, who verified that the email address was previously utilized by plaintiff. 2 1 and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right 2 to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); 3 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 DATED: March 3, 2016. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.