Ramsdell v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation et al

Filing 32

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew: This Order is issued pursuant to FRCP 4(m), which requires that plaintiff(s) serve the summons and complaint upon all de fendants within 120 days after filing the complaint. The Court may dismiss the action prior to the 120 days, however, if plaintiff(s) has/have not diligently prosecuted the action. The Court, on its own motion, hereby orders plaintiff(s) to show caus e in writing no later than 9/23/2009 why this action should not be dismissed as to all remaining defendants for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will accept Proof of service of the Summons and Co mplaint on ALL defendants, if it is filed on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or motion on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due. Court Reporter: None Present. (gk) ** ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE VACATED PURSUANT TO CIVIL MINUTES OF 9/28/2009 35 ** Modified on 9/28/2009 (gk).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV 04-3654-RSWL Ramsdell v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, et al. Date September 16, 2009

Present: The Honorable

RONALD S.W. LEW, Senior United States District Court Judge None Present Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Defendants: None Present

Joseph Remigio, Relief Deputy Clerk Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: None Present Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

This Order is issued pursuant to FRCP 4(m), which requires that plaintiff(s) serve the summons and complaint upon all defendants within 120 days after filing the complaint. The Court may dismiss the action prior to the 120 days, however, if plaintiff(s) has/have not diligently prosecuted the action. It is the responsibility of plaintiff to respond promptly to all Orders and to prosecute the action diligently, including filing proofs of service and stipulations extending time to respond. If necessary, plaintiff(s) must also pursue Rule 55 remedies promptly upon default of any defendant. All stipulations affecting the progress of the case must be approved by the Court, Local Rule 7-1. The file in this case lacks the papers that would show it is being timely prosecuted, as reflected below. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, hereby orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing no later than SEPTEMBER 23, 2009, why this action should not be dismissed as to all remaining defendants for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will accept one of the following, if it is filed on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently. ·

Proof of service of the Summons and Complaint on ALL defendants

No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or motion on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due.

: Initials of Preparer JRE

00

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 1