Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Advanced Engineering Solution, Inc., A California Corporation v. Paccar

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


October 15, 2012

ADVANCED ENGINEERING SOLUTION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PACCAR, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION;
KENWORTH TRUCK COMPANY, AN UNKNOWN ENTITY;
KALYPSO, INC., A CORPORATION;
PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION;
ANDREW TIMM, AN INDIVIDUAL;
JORDAN REYNOLDS, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND
DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT PACCAR, INC.

On July 23, 2012, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why this Case Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure to Prosecute. See ECF No. 33 ("OSC"). Plaintiff Advanced Engineering 22 Solution, Inc. ("Plaintiff") filed a response to the OSC requesting: (1) dismissal of this case without 23 prejudice due to Plaintiff's financial inability to pursue litigation; or, alternatively, (2) transfer of 24 this case to the United States District Court, Western Division of Texas, Austin Division ("Texas 25 Court"), where Plaintiff is the defendant in a case Plaintiff alleges is related to the instant suit; or, 26 alternatively, (3) that the Court allow Plaintiff 60 additional days to seek and obtain representation. 27

See ECF No. 36 ("Response") at 2.

Defendants Kenworth Truck Company, Kalypso Inc., Parametric Technology Corporation, Andrew 4 Timm pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).*fn1 See ECF No. 43. The Court, 5 however, declined to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Paccar, Inc. ("Paccar") for 6 reasons set forth in the Order. Id. 7

Court further ordered that, by October 3, 2012, new counsel must: (1) file a notice of appearance; 9 (3) meet and confer with counsel for Paccar pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Id.

The Court stated that if these tasks were not accomplished by October 3, 2012, Plaintiff's claims against Paccar would be dismissed with prejudice. Id. As of today, October 15, 2012, Plaintiff has 13 failed to meet any of these deadlines. For example, the Court has not received a notice of 14 appearance from Plaintiff's new counsel. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not filed a status report 15 advising the Court of how Plaintiff intends to proceed with the litigation. Plaintiff also has not 16 informed the Court that Plaintiff has met and conferred with counsel for Paccar pursuant to Federal 17

WITH PREJUDICE. The case management conference set for October 24, 2012, at 2:00 p.m is 19 hereby VACATED. The Clerk shall close the file.

A hearing regarding the OSC was held on August 30, 2012. Following the hearing, the Court issued an order ("Order") dismissing, without prejudice, Plaintiffs' claims against 3 The Court additionally ordered Plaintiff to retain new counsel by October 3, 2012. The 8 (2) file a status report advising the Court of how Plaintiff intends to proceed with the litigation; and 10 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against Paccar are DISMISSED 18

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.