Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Notice of Order to Show Cause -- Dismissal

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    278

    Default Notice of Order to Show Cause -- Dismissal

    I'm a defendant in a suit waged in Calif. by the most incompetent law firm
    in existence. They work for a credit collection agency and I think they
    just assume that they'll just get a default judgment because once they file
    the complaint they don't know what to do next.

    Anyhow, they filed the suit in the wrong court, I made a motion to change
    venue, the motion was granted. CA law says that if the suit was filed in
    the wrong court, the plaintiff must pay the court costs to transfer it
    within 30 days after I gave them notice of the order to xfer. The court and
    I have been waiting for 45 days for the plaintiff's to pay the costs so it
    could be transferred, but the plaintiff apparently has not.

    So I was just about to file a motion to dismiss when the court mailed me a
    "Notice of Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal" which says within it "An Order
    to Show Cause re: Dismissal in the above action has been set for (date)
    (time) (dept.)" I'm not sure what this is. I didn't receive anything from
    the law firm so I'm assuming it's not based on an ex parte motion by them.
    I'm assuming the court is doing this sua sponte. Is that right? And if so,
    am I legally required to show up? (it's a horrible pain to drive the
    distance which is why I made a motion to change venue in the first place)

    Now that I think about it, the ADR meeting was supposed to be held on the
    same day that the Notice of Order was mailed. I didn't go, and I have a
    feeling the firm didn't go either, because they never responded to anything
    from me or the court, so maybe it's an automatic dismissal if nobody shows
    up for ADR.

    In any event, could somebody tell me more about this? Thanks!




  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,067

    Default Notice of Order to Show Cause -- Dismissal


    "Falky foo" <falkyfoo@bonksbcglobal.net> wrote in message
    news:qLUid.5188$zx1.3209@newssvr13.news.prodigy.co m...
    I'm a defendant in a suit waged in Calif. by the most
    incompetent law firm
    in existence. They work for a credit collection agency and I
    think they
    just assume that they'll just get a default judgment because
    once they file
    the complaint they don't know what to do next. Anyhow, they filed the suit in the wrong court, I made a motion
    to change
    venue, the motion was granted. CA law says that if the suit was
    filed in
    the wrong court, the plaintiff must pay the court costs to
    transfer it
    within 30 days after I gave them notice of the order to xfer.
    The court and
    I have been waiting for 45 days for the plaintiff's to pay the
    costs so it
    could be transferred, but the plaintiff apparently has not. So I was just about to file a motion to dismiss when the court
    mailed me a
    "Notice of Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal" which says within
    it "An Order
    to Show Cause re: Dismissal in the above action has been set for
    (date)
    (time) (dept.)" I'm not sure what this is. I didn't receive
    anything from
    the law firm so I'm assuming it's not based on an ex parte
    motion by them.
    I'm assuming the court is doing this sua sponte. Is that right?
    And if so,
    am I legally required to show up? (it's a horrible pain to
    drive the
    distance which is why I made a motion to change venue in the
    first place)
    Now that I think about it, the ADR meeting was supposed to be
    held on the
    same day that the Notice of Order was mailed. I didn't go, and
    I have a
    feeling the firm didn't go either, because they never responded
    to anything
    from me or the court, so maybe it's an automatic dismissal if
    nobody shows
    up for ADR. In any event, could somebody tell me more about this? Thanks!
    The plaintiff is being ordered to show cause why the court
    shouldn't dismiss the case. The order has a misleading title.
    All the order means is: "I'm going to dismiss this unless somebody
    gives me a reason not to." You don't need to appear if you have
    nothing to say in response to any "cause" that the plaintiff might
    show. Might be better to let the plaintiff sleep.

    McGyver



  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    278

    Default Notice of Order to Show Cause -- Dismissal

    Thanks.. and sorry about the multiple posts..

    I blocked all messages with an "OT" (ie: off topic) in the subject heading,
    but that included the "ot" in "notice" in my own subject. Whoops!




    "McGyver" <Greyprof@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:2v4mf6F2ej2n0U1@uni-berlin.de...
    "Falky foo" <falkyfoo@bonksbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:qLUid.5188$zx1.3209@newssvr13.news.prodigy.co m...
    I'm a defendant in a suit waged in Calif. by the most
    incompetent law firm
    in existence. They work for a credit collection agency and I
    think they
    just assume that they'll just get a default judgment because
    once they file
    the complaint they don't know what to do next. Anyhow, they filed the suit in the wrong court, I made a motion
    to change
    venue, the motion was granted. CA law says that if the suit was
    filed in
    the wrong court, the plaintiff must pay the court costs to
    transfer it
    within 30 days after I gave them notice of the order to xfer.
    The court and
    I have been waiting for 45 days for the plaintiff's to pay the
    costs so it
    could be transferred, but the plaintiff apparently has not. So I was just about to file a motion to dismiss when the court
    mailed me a
    "Notice of Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal" which says within
    it "An Order
    to Show Cause re: Dismissal in the above action has been set for
    (date)
    (time) (dept.)" I'm not sure what this is. I didn't receive
    anything from
    the law firm so I'm assuming it's not based on an ex parte
    motion by them.
    I'm assuming the court is doing this sua sponte. Is that right?
    And if so,
    am I legally required to show up? (it's a horrible pain to
    drive the
    distance which is why I made a motion to change venue in the
    first place)
    Now that I think about it, the ADR meeting was supposed to be
    held on the
    same day that the Notice of Order was mailed. I didn't go, and
    I have a
    feeling the firm didn't go either, because they never responded
    to anything
    from me or the court, so maybe it's an automatic dismissal if
    nobody shows
    up for ADR. In any event, could somebody tell me more about this? Thanks!
    The plaintiff is being ordered to show cause why the court shouldn't dismiss the case. The order has a misleading title. All the order means is: "I'm going to dismiss this unless somebody gives me a reason not to." You don't need to appear if you have nothing to say in response to any "cause" that the plaintiff might show. Might be better to let the plaintiff sleep. McGyver


  4. #4

    Default Another Question

    What if the 30 day window to reply to the complaint has started and the show cause hearing date is a year from now? Do I still respond or is the case continued until the plaintiff 'shows cause'?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-20-2005, 10:53 AM
  2. Petition to Appeal in Sloan vs. Knapp, NY Sup. Index No. 25230/2004
    By Sam Sloan in forum Consumer Law and Fraud
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-23-2004, 06:25 PM
  3. Definitive Proof GW Bu$h DESERTED his military service ! <=
    By Ahab in forum Consumer Law and Fraud
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-12-2004, 07:44 AM
  4. Sri Lankan Adoptee Losing Hope.
    By Mala in forum Virginia Family Law
    Replies: 1546
    Last Post: 02-05-2004, 10:47 AM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-30-2003, 09:42 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •