Chavez v. Bank of America Corporation

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-02756

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 5/4/2017. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 4/20/2017. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LUCIA B. CHAVEZ, Case No. 15-cv-02756-KAW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. 10 BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 11 Defendant. 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 On June 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant complaint against Defendant Bank of America 14 Corporation, alleging violations of Federal Regulation E and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. 15 (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) On April 10, 2017, Defendant requested a telephonic discovery conference, 16 on the ground that Plaintiff was failing to comply with her discovery obligations. (Dkt. No. 40.) 17 Specifically, Defendant stated that Plaintiff had failed to: (1) respond substantively to Defendant's 18 meet and confer attempts, (2) provide promised discovery, and (3) communicate generally with 19 Defendant. (Id. at 1; see also Kenney Decl. ¶¶ 5 (identifying documents Plaintiff has not turned 20 over); 6 (Plaintiff's provision of 64 pages of documents that were not related to her alleged travel); 21 7 (Plaintiff stating at her deposition that she had additional documents to produce), 8, 11 (Plaintiff's continued failure to produce the documents she said she would produce).) The Court 22 also previously admonished Plaintiff about participating in the case. For example, at the August 2, 23 2016 case management conference, after Plaintiff's counsel stated that he had not heard from the 24 plaintiff, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a status report indicating whether or not she intended to 25 prosecute the case. (Dkt. No. 26.) The Court again admonished Plaintiff about participating in the 26 case at the February 21, 2017 case management conference.1 27 28 1 The February 21, 2017 case management conference had been continued from February 14, 1 On April 18, 2017, the Court held a telephonic discovery conference with the parties. 2 There, Plaintiff's counsel indicated that he had not heard from Plaintiff since early March, despite 3 numerous attempts to reach her. 4 In light of the above, Plaintiff is ordered, on or before May 4, 2017, to respond to this 5 order to show cause by explaining why the instant case should not be dismissed for failure to 6 prosecute. Failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of the case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: April 20, 2017 __________________________________ 9 KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2017, due to Plaintiff's failure to participate in drafting the joint case management statement despite Defendant's efforts to meet and confer. (See Dkt. No. 33.) 2