Jourdan v. Seterus, Inc., No. 2:2019cv00053 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 2/14/2019 VACATING 6 Motion for More Definite Statement without prejudice as MOOT. RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court's order. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Washington, S)

Download PDF
Jourdan v. Seterus, Inc. Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CYNTHIA L. JOURDAN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 SETERUS, INC., 15 No. 2:19-cv-00053 JAM AC (PS) ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. 16 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the 17 18 undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). This case was 19 removed from state court on January 8, 2019. ECF No. 1. On January 15, 2019, defendant filed a 20 motion for a more definite statement. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff did not timely respond. On February 21 8, 2019, the undersigned re-scheduled the hearing on defendant’s motion to give plaintiff a 22 chance to respond. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to respond would lead to a 23 recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Id. at 2. Plaintiff has not 24 responded to the court’s orders, nor taken any action to prosecute this case. Because the undersigned recommends dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute, it is 25 26 HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion (ECF No. 6) is vacated without prejudice as 27 MOOT. 28 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 2 prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. 3 Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) 6 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 7 objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 8 Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Failure to file objections within the 9 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 10 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 DATED: February 14, 2019 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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.