United States District Court, Central District of California
December 12, 2014
Vera Lee Munoz
Carolyn W. Colvin
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER
MARGARET A. NAGLE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, represented by counsel, filed a Complaint on February 25, 2014, seeking review of the denial of plaintiff’s application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. In paragraph IX of its February 26, 2014 Case Management Order, the Court ordered plaintiff to prepare and deliver to the United States Attorney’s Office a draft of plaintiff’s portions of the Joint Stipulation within 21 days of the filing of the Answer. The Court’s review of the file shows that the Answer was filed on September 8, 2014, and, to date, no Joint Stipulation has been filed and that 95 days have elapsed since the filing of the Answer.
The Court further notes that, on September 24, 2014, counsel for plaintiff filed a Motion To Withdraw As Attorney Of Record (“the Motion”), citing a “complete breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.” On September 29, 2014, the Court issued an Order To Show Cause (“the Order”) why the Motion should not be granted. The Court cautioned plaintiff that her failure to timely respond to the Order would be deemed to constitute a consent to the granting of the Motion and, further, could result in the dismissal of the action. Plaintiff did not respond to the Order or otherwise communicate with the Court in any way after plaintiff’s counsel’s Motion was filed. Accordingly, on, the Court granted the Motion.
Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Case Management Order and with its September 29, 2014 Order To Show Cause, it appears that plaintiff has abandoned her claim. Accordingly, on or before January 5, 2015, plaintiff is
ORDERED TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE why no Joint Stipulation has been filed and why this case should not be dismissed for lack of diligent prosecution and failure to comply with the Court’s prior orders. In lieu of responding to this Order To Show Cause, plaintiff may file a Motion For Summary Judgment on or before January 5, 2015.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Plaintiff is expressly cautioned that her failure to timely respond to this Order will result the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and Local Rule 41-1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.