United States District Court, Central District of California
December 5, 2014
Aquahlauah Phoebe Ruby Clark
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Alka Sagar, United States Magistrate Judge
On July 25, 2014, after Plaintiff failed to file any objections to her attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record, and finding good cause for the request, the Court granted the Motion of Plaintiff’s Counsel to withdraw as attorney of record (Docket Entry No. 19). The Court ordered counsel to provide Plaintiff with his file materials and file a declaration attesting to the transmittal of these records. Id.. On July 31, 2014, Counsel submitted a declaration in compliance with the Court’s Order (Docket Entry No. 20). The Court’s July 25, 2014 Order also afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to retain other counsel in this matter or notify the Court of her intention to proceed in pro per, no later than September 29, 2014 (Docket Entry No. 19). The Court also ordered Plaintiff to file a motion for summary judgment no later than November 28, 2014. Id. To date, Plaintiff has failed to notify the Court as to whether she has retained counsel to pursue this case or will pursue this case in pro per and has failed to file a motion for summary judgment as required by the Court’s July 25, 2014 Order.
Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s Order. Alternatively, Plaintiff may discharge this Order to Show Cause by filing a motion for summary judgment or remand no later than noon on December 22, 2014 (with a courtesy copy delivered directly to Magistrate Judge Sagar’s chambers on the Ninth Floor of the Courthouse at 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012). If Plaintiff timely files her motion, the Court will consider it to be a satisfactory response to this Order to Show Cause and vacate the Order. The dates set forth in the CMO will be extended accordingly.
Plaintiff is admonished that her failure to satisfactorily respond to this Order will result in an Order dismissing this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s Orders. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).