LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:22-cv-05815
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories, Judge Hixson ordered LeGrand to explain her missed filing and warned the case could be dismissed.
Condalisa LeGrand must respond to the court’s order and file the required documents; Abbott Laboratories may file a reply if she files an opposition.
What happened
In LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Laboratories asked for partial dismissal, but Condalisa LeGrand did not file a response that followed the court’s local rules.
The court ordered LeGrand to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it and meet court deadlines. She must file a declaration and either a compliant response or a statement that she does not oppose the motion by February 6, 2025.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson warned that failing to respond in writing would be treated as an admission that LeGrand did not intend to continue the case, and that the case would likely be dismissed. The order did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories · No. 3:22-cv-05815
- Thomas Hixson
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Abbott Laboratories filed a motion seeking partial dismissal. The opinion states that Condalisa LeGrand did not file an opposition that complied with Civil Local Rule 7.
Order to Show Cause
The court issued an order to show cause, meaning an order requiring a party to explain why the court should not take a specified action. The court ordered LeGrand to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to actively pursue the case, and failure to comply with court deadlines.
Deadlines and Possible Consequences
LeGrand must file a declaration by February 6, 2025, and at the same time file either an opposition complying with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or a statement of nonopposition complying with Local Rule 7-3(b). If LeGrand files an opposition, Abbott Laboratories may file a reply by February 13, 2025. The court warned that failure to submit a written response by the deadline would be treated as an admission that LeGrand did not intend to continue prosecuting the case and that the case would likely be dismissed.
Disposition
The court did not rule on Abbott Laboratories’ motion for partial dismissal and did not dismiss the case in this order. It ordered LeGrand to respond to the order to show cause and comply with the stated filing requirements.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.