Santiago v. Intuit, Inc. et al
Filing
24
ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 8 Motion to Compel; Dismissing case without prejudice; denying as moot 15 Motion to Dismiss. (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
OSSIE SANTIAGO, an individual California
resident, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
INTUIT, INC., a Delaware corporation;
GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 5:12-CV-01262-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
COMPEL ARBITRATION;
DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Ossie Santiago (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Intuit, Inc. (“Intuit), Google,
19
Inc. (“Google”), and Does 1 through 100, inclusive (collectively, “Defendants”), on March14,
20
2012. See ECF No. 1. On April 20, 2012, the case was reassigned to the undersigned judge. ECF
21
No. 6. On April 25, 2012, the Court related the above captioned case to In re: High Tech
22
Employee Antitrust Litigation, 11-CV-2509-LHK. ECF No. 11. On April 25, 2012, Intuit filed a
23
motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss, or in the alternative stay proceedings. ECF No. 8. On
24
June 1, 2012, Google filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of
25
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). ECF No. 15. Plaintiff failed to respond to either motion.
26
As a result of Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ two motions, On July 23, 2012,
27
the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure to
28
1
Case No.: 12-CV-01262-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
1
Prosecute (“OSC”). ECF No. 22. The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond by August 13, 2012, and
2
to appear at an OSC hearing on August 30, 2012.
3
Plaintiff failed to respond to the OSC by August 13, 2012, as ordered. Instead, on August
23, 2012, ten days after the response deadline, Plaintiff filed a response stating that: (1) he was not
5
aware that his OSC response deadline was August 13, 2012; and (2) he does not oppose Defendant
6
Intuit’s motion to compel arbitration, provided the case is dismissed without prejudice so that the
7
parties can pursue arbitration. Plaintiff has no excuse for filing an untimely response to the OSC,
8
as he is represented by counsel and received ECF notice on July 23, 2012, of the Court’s OSC and
9
the OSC response deadline. However, because neither Defendant has yet served an answer or a
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
4
motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff may dismiss this action without prejudice without court
11
order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Accordingly, Defendant Intuit’s
12
Motion to Compel is GRANTED; this action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and Defendant
13
Google’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot. The OSC hearing set for August 30, 2012, is
14
accordingly VACATED. The Clerk shall close the file.
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
Dated: August 29, 2012
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 12-CV-01262-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
