Opinion
For Nadia Issa, Plaintiff: Julia Sklar, Law Offices of Julia Sklar, Van Nuys, CA.
For Carolyn W Colvin, Commissioner of Social Security of the United States of America, Defendant: Assistant U.S. Attorney LA-CV, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of U.S. Attorney, Civil Division, Los Angeles, CA; Assistant U.S. Attorney LA-SSA, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of the General Counsel for Social Security Adm., San Francisco, CA.
Present: The Honorable ROZELLA A. OLIVER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Proceedings: (In Chambers) ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
ROZELLA A. OLIVER, J.
Plaintiff Nadia Issa currently has two cases pending before this Court, both against the Acting Commissioner of Social Security: Case Nos. 15-cv-04572 FMO (RAO) (" Case No. 1") and 15-cv-04634 FMO (RAO) (" Case No. 2"). The complaints in both cases are identical, relating to the same denial of disability benefits. See Case No. 1, Dkt. No. 1; Case No. 2, Dkt. No. 3.
On September 21, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why Case No. 1 should not be dismissed due to her failure to file amended documents in Case No. 1, as instructed by the Court on June 18, 2015. See Case No. 1, Dkt. No. 5. Plaintiff responded to the Court's order by filing a declaration of counsel in Case No. 2. See Case No. 2, Dkt. No. 17 (" Declaration"). The Declaration addresses dates and events relevant to Case No. 2, but is silent as to Case No. 1. Id.
In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff must show cause, in writing, by October 2, 2015, why Case No. 1 should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff's response to this order to show cause should be filed in Case No. 1. Failure to timely comply with this Order and/or to show cause will result in a recommendation that Case. No. 1 be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
If Plaintiff does not wish to proceed in Case No. 1, she may voluntarily dismiss Case No. 1 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). A Notice of Dismissal form is attached to this Order for Plaintiff's convenience. The voluntary dismissal of Case No. 1 will not impact the proceedings in Case No. 2, which is now awaiting the filing of Plaintiff's Proof of Service.
IT IS SO ORDERED.