Alexander v. Hilton Hotels Worldwide

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Alexander v. Hilton Hotels Worldwide

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 LIAM ALEXANDER, Case No. 24-cv-00830-TSH 6 Plaintiff, 7 y. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 8 HILTON HOTELS WORLDWIDE, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pending before the Court is Defendant Justice Operating Company’s motion to dismiss. qe 12 ECF No. 17. Plaintiff Liam Alexander failed to file an opposition in compliance with Civil Local 13 || Rule 7. The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the 14 || orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

370 U.S. 626

, 629-33 3 15 || (1962). Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the June 6, 2024 noticed hearing date and 16 || ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute 5 7 and failure to comply with court deadlines. Plaintiff shall file a declaration by June 6, 2024 and 5 18 simultaneously file either an opposition in compliance with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or a statement 19 of nonopposition in compliance with Local Rule 7-3(b). If Plaintiff file an opposition, Defendants 20) may file any reply by June 13, 2024. Notice is hereby provided that failure to file a written response will be deemed an 7 admission that you do not intend to prosecute, and this case will likely be dismissed. Thus, it is 73 imperative the Court receive a written response by the deadline above. IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 6 Dated: May 23, 2024 27 THOMAS S. HIXSON 28 United States Magistrate Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown