Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Notice of Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal

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

    Default Notice of Order to Show Cause re: 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
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    162

    Default Notice of Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal

    On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 23:41:22 GMT, "Falky foo"
    <falkyfoo@bonksbcglobal.net> wrote:
    I'm a defendant in a suit waged in Calif. by the most incompetent law firmin existence. They work for a credit collection agency and I think theyjust assume that they'll just get a default judgment because once they filethe complaint they don't know what to do next.Anyhow, they filed the suit in the wrong court, I made a motion to changevenue, the motion was granted. CA law says that if the suit was filed inthe wrong court, the plaintiff must pay the court costs to transfer itwithin 30 days after I gave them notice of the order to xfer. The court andI have been waiting for 45 days for the plaintiff's to pay the costs so itcould 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 Orderto 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 fromthe 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 thedistance 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 thesame day that the Notice of Order was mailed. I didn't go, and I have afeeling the firm didn't go either, because they never responded to anythingfrom me or the court, so maybe it's an automatic dismissal if nobody showsup for ADR.In any event, could somebody tell me more about this? Thanks!
    An Order to Show Cause relating to a dismissal can be issued by the
    court sua sponte; I found a few examples of such orders online.

    The order should describe who needs to do what and by when; for
    example, it may give a deadline for plaintiff to show cause, and if
    plaintiff does so, the time defendant would be given to respond.

    Since I'm not a lawyer, I'm just guessing. It would make sense for
    this to be an order to the plaintiff to show cause why the suit should
    not be dismissed. If that's so, and you're the defendant, you could
    sit tight and see what the plaintiff does. What would happen next
    would depend on whether or how the plaintiff responds. If they ignore
    it or voluntarily move for dismissal, you may not need to do anything
    at all; if they respond with some kind of argument why not to dismiss,
    you may need to file a response.

    --
    Chris Green


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-08-2009, 10:54 PM
  2. 861 Loser - Edwards
    By XCobraJock in forum Federal and State Tax Law
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-28-2005, 02:48 PM
  3. 861 Loser - Takaba
    By Richard Macdonald in forum Federal and State Tax Law
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-28-2005, 02:17 PM
  4. ALIA Digest #3113
    By Lady Di in forum New Jersey Family Law
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-19-2003, 05:21 AM
  5. Restraining order
    By Guest in forum Small Claim Court
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-13-2003, 01:07 PM

Posting Permissions

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