Ali v. TransUnion Corp. et al., No. 1:2019cv00450 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Case for Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court's Orders signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 09/30/2019. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

Download PDF
Ali v. TransUnion Corp. et al. Doc. 18 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 HUSSEIN ALI, 5 Case No. 1:19-cv-00450-AWI-SKO Plaintiff, 6 v. 7 EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., 8 9 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND OBEY THE COURT’S ORDERS (Doc. No. 16) Defendant. 10 _____________________________________/ 11 On March 5, 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Defendants Trans 12 1 13 Union LLC and Experian Information Solutions, Inc., in Fresno County Superior Court. (Doc. 14 No. 1-1.) On April 5, 2019, Defendant Experian removed the case to this court. (Doc. No. 1.) 15 16 17 The assigned magistrate judge set a Mandatory Scheduling Conference for June 27, 2019, and ordered the parties to file a Joint Scheduling Report by June 20, 2019. (Doc. No. 2.) On June 27, 2019, Plaintiff failed to appear at the scheduling conference. (Doc. No. 11.) Thus, the assigned 18 19 20 magistrate judge continued the scheduling conference to August 8, 2019 and directed the parties to file an updated joint scheduling report by August 1, 2019. (Id.) The assigned magistrate judge 21 also warned Plaintiff: “The Court ADMONISHES Plaintiff that if he fails to appear without 22 good cause at the scheduling conference on August 8, 2019, the Court will recommend to the 23 assigned district judge that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute and 24 failure to comply with a court order.” (Id.) (emphasis in original). On August 8, 2019, Plaintiff 25 again failed to appear at the Mandatory Scheduling Conference. (See Doc. No. 14.) 26 27 28 1 Trans Union was dismissed as a defendant on May 7, 2019, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. (Doc. Nos. 6, 7.) Dockets.Justia.com Due to Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the August 8, 2019 scheduling conference, the assigned 1 2 magistrate judge entered an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) directing Plaintiff to show cause by 3 August 22, 2019, why the court should not recommend that the case be dismissed for failure to 4 prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s orders. (Doc. No. 15 at 3.) Plaintiff failed to 5 respond to the OSC by August 22, 2019 and has not filed a response to date. 6 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 302, on September 9, 2019, the assigned 7 8 9 magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice because Plaintiff failed to comply with the OSC, failed to comply with other court 10 orders, and failed to prosecute the case. (Doc. No. 16.) The findings and recommendations were 11 mailed to Plaintiff’s address on the docket and contained notice that any objections were to be filed 12 within fourteen (14) days. (Id.) No objections have been filed. 13 Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo 14 review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the findings and 15 16 recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis. 17 ORDER 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. The findings and recommendation dated September 9, 2019 (Doc. No. 16), are 20 ADOPTED IN FULL; 21 2. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and 3. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. 22 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: 27 September 30, 2019 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 28 2

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.