Speculative Product Design LLC v. Marjorie Williams et al

Filing 22

IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. It is the responsibility of plaintiff to respond promptly to all Orders and to prosecute the action diligently, including fili ng 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, L ocal 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 February 7, 2014, w hy this action should not be dismissed as to the remaining defendant 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 evidenc e that the matter is being prosecuted diligently: PLAINTIFF'S FILING OF A MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT. 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. (jre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-4320 RSWL (JEMx)

Title

Speculative Product Design, LLC v. Marjorie Williams, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

January 22, 2014

RONALD S.W. LEW, Senior, U.S. District Court Judge

Joseph Remigio

Not Present

n/a

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

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

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 February 7, 2014, why this action should not be dismissed as to the remaining defendant
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.
•

PLAINTIFF’S FILING OF A MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
JUDGMENT.

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

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

00

JRE

Page 1 of 1