UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
August 29, 2012
OSSIE SANTIAGO, AN INDIVIDUAL CALIFORNIA RESIDENT, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
INTUIT, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; GOOGLE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Ossie Santiago ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Intuit, Inc. ("Intuit), Google, Inc. ("Google"), and Does 1 through 100, inclusive (collectively, "Defendants"), on March14, 20 2012. See ECF No. 1. On April 20, 2012, the case was reassigned to the undersigned judge. ECF 21 No. 6. On April 25, 2012, the Court related the above captioned case to In re: High Tech 22 Employee Antitrust Litigation, 11-CV-2509-LHK. ECF No. 11. On April 25, 2012, Intuit filed a 23 motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss, or in the alternative stay proceedings. ECF No. 8. On 24 June 1, 2012, Google filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of 25 Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). ECF No. 15. Plaintiff failed to respond to either motion. 26 As a result of Plaintiff's failure to respond to Defendants' two motions, On July 23, 2012, 27 the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure to Prosecute ("OSC"). ECF No. 22. The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond by August 13, 2012, and 2 to appear at an OSC hearing on August 30, 2012.
Plaintiff failed to respond to the OSC by August 13, 2012, as ordered. Instead, on August 23, 2012, ten days after the response deadline, Plaintiff filed a response stating that: (1) he was not 5 aware that his OSC response deadline was August 13, 2012; and (2) he does not oppose Defendant Intuit's motion to compel arbitration, provided the case is dismissed without prejudice so that the 7 parties can pursue arbitration. Plaintiff has no excuse for filing an untimely response to the OSC, 8 as he is represented by counsel and received ECF notice on July 23, 2012, of the Court's OSC and 9 the OSC response deadline. However, because neither Defendant has yet served an answer or a 10 motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff may dismiss this action without prejudice without court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Accordingly, Defendant Intuit's
Motion to Compel is GRANTED; this action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and Defendant Google's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot. The OSC hearing set for August 30, 2012, is 14 accordingly VACATED. The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.