Farris v. 3M Company ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GARY FARRIS, et al., Case No. 18-cv-04186-JST 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 9 Vv. PREJUDICE 10 3M COMPANY, et al., ll Defendants. 12 13 No pretrial statement having been filed by November 6, 2020 as ordered, ECF No. 267, 14 || and no party having appeared at today’s pretrial conference as ordered, the Court concludes that 3 15 || Plaintiffs are no longer prosecuting this case. The case is therefore dismissed with prejudice. Fed. a 16 || R. Civ. P. 41(b); Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp., 529 F.2d 943, 947 (9th Cir. 1976) (‘There is no 3 17 || question that a District Court has the power to dismiss a claim of a plaintiff with prejudice for 18 || failure to comply with an order of the court.”). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: November 13, 2020 . 71 JON S. TIGAR 22 nited States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28