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
