Singh et al v. Bondi et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED S TATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
H ARPREET S INGH, ET AL .,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PAM B ONDI , ET AL .,
Defendants.
Case No. 4:25-cv-08462-YGR
O RDER T O S HOW CAUSE
The Court held a case management conference on December 3, 2025, where plaintiffs’
counsel Emmanuel Enyinwa represented that he, with approval from his clients, would file a
notice of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by December 5, 2025. (Dkt. No. 11.) No such dismissal
has been filed. Plaintiffs are now O RDERED TO S HOW C AUSE as to why the petition should not be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court has voiced its concern regarding plaintiffs’ counsel’s expertise in this area.
Plaintiffs’ counsel is further ordered to confirm that he will not charge his clients for fees incurred
in refiling this petition in the appropriate jurisdiction. Prof. R. of Conduct 1.1 (“A lawyer shall not
intentionally, recklessly, with gross negligence, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with
competence.”); see also Rule 1.5.
Plaintiffs shall respond in writing to this order to show cause within five days of the filing
of this order. Should plaintiffs fail to respond to this order by December 22, 2025, the Court may
issue sanctions and will sua sponte dismiss the petition.
I T I S S O O RDERED.
Dated: December 17, 2025
YVONNE G ONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED S TATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-08462-YGR Document 11 Filed 12/17/25 Page 1 of 1