Zinnerman v. Taxdhal
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:24-cv-00141
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Zinnerman v. Taxdhal, Judge Hixson ordered the plaintiffs to explain their failure to follow filing instructions or face a recommendation of dismissal.
Charles Zinnerman and Denise Zinnerman, the plaintiffs, were required to clarify their filings and respond to the order to show cause.
What happened
In Zinnerman v. Taxdhal, Charles Zinnerman and Denise Zinnerman filed a complaint, but the court could not determine whether Denise was meant to be a plaintiff. She appeared in the caption but not in the complaint, did not sign it, and did not file an application to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court had previously directed the plaintiffs either to clarify Denise’s status and address the filing requirements or to amend the complaint. Neither plaintiff responded by the deadline. Charles instead filed a document called “Add to Complaint,” which did not answer the court’s questions.
The court ordered both plaintiffs to file a written explanation by February 22, 2024. Judge Hixson warned that failure to respond would be treated as an admission that they did not intend to pursue the case, and the court would recommend dismissal; the court did not dismiss the case in this order.
The detailed version
- Zinnerman v. Taxdhal · No. 3:24-cv-00141
- Vince Chhabria
- Feb. 6, 2024
Background
Charles Zinnerman and Denise Zinnerman filed a complaint. The caption listed both as plaintiffs, but Denise was not identified as a plaintiff in the body of the complaint, the claims were written in the first person singular, and Denise did not sign the complaint. Charles was the only plaintiff who filed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court had previously directed the plaintiffs to clarify their filings. If Denise intended to be a plaintiff, the court directed her to file an application to proceed without paying the filing fee or to pay the $402 filing fee. If Charles intended to be the only plaintiff, the court directed him to file an amended complaint. The deadline was January 31, 2024.
Neither plaintiff responded to that order. Charles filed a document titled “Add to Complaint,” but the court found that it did not address the filing-status issue and instead appeared to add allegations.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause, meaning it required the plaintiffs to explain why the case should continue. It ordered Charles and Denise to file a declaration by February 22, 2024. If they filed a response, the court would either issue an order based on that declaration or hold a hearing on March 7, 2024.
The court warned that failure to file a written response would be treated as an admission that the plaintiffs did not intend to pursue the case. The court stated that it would then recommend dismissal. This order itself did not dismiss the case. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.