1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 BRIAN WHITAKER, 10 Case No. 21-cv-03263-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 KALED MORSEY, 13 Defendant. 14

15 16 The complaint was filed on May 3, 2021. Under the initial scheduling order, Dkt. No. 5, 17 the deadline to hold the joint site inspect of premises was on August 27, 2021, with the deadline 18 for Plaintiff to file a Notice of Need for Mediation 42 days after that date. Plaintiff has failed to 19 comply with this deadline or notify the Court of a settlement. Plaintiff shall show cause by May 20 10, 2022 why the matter should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. If there is no response to 21 this order, the case will be dismissed without further notice. 22 The Court also notes concerns about whether subject matter jurisdiction exists in this case. 23 Federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction 24 exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,

, 25 514 (2006). In a recently filed complaint, the San Francisco and Los Angeles District Attorneys detail serious allegations regarding the conduct of the Potter Handy firm and its clients, including 26 concerning whether its clients actually visit each establishment sued. See Complaint, People of the 27 1 1102496. In his answer, pro se Defendant Kaled Morsey states his business was closed due to the 2 || COVID-19 pandemic at the time Plaintiff alleges he visited the establishment. Should Plaintiff 3 proceed with this lawsuit, the Court will seek to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction 4 || exists in this case. 5 6 || ITISSO ORDERED. 4 g || Dated: April 26, 2022 MAA 9 RICHARD SEEBORG 10 Chief United States District Judge 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE CASE No. 21-cv-03263-RS