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.

Plotkin v. Colvin

United States District Court, C.D. California

January 6, 2015

Kenneth Plotkin, Plaintiff
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Not Present.

Attorneys for Defendant: Not Present.

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Honorable Alka Sagar, United States Magistrate Judge.

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On June 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking review of the Commissioner's denial of his application for disability benefits (Docket Entry No. 3). On June 11, 2014, the Court issued an " Order re: Procedures in Social Security Case" (Docket Entry No. 9), requiring Plaintiff to file a motion for summary judgment no later than 30 days from the service of Defendant's responsive pleading and the administrative record. (Docket Entry No. 9 at 2). On November 19, 2014, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint and the Certified Administrative Record (Docket Entry Nos. 14-16). Therefore, Plaintiff was required to file a Motion for Summary Judgment no later than December 19, 2014. To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a motion for summary judgment as required by the Court's July 11, 2014 Order or request an extension of time to do so.

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 January 20, 2015 (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 his 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 his failure to satisfactorily respond to this Order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's Orders. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).


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.